By Peter Navarro
The 2020 presidential election appears to feature at least four types of statistical anomalies that raise troubling questions. Table 8 illustrates the incidence of these statistical anomalies across the six battleground states. As you can see from the table, Wisconsin and Georgia are characterized by the highest degree of statistical anomalies, with three of the four anomalies present. Nevada and Arizona show two anomalies present while Michigan has at least one. Let’s take a more granular look now at each of these types of statistical anomalies.
Dramatic Changes in Mail-in and Absentee Ballot Rejection Rates from Previous Elections
It is routine across the 50 states for mail-in-and absentee ballots to be rejected for any number of reasons. These reasons may include: the lack of a signature or adequate signature match, a late arrival past a deadline,(124) the lack of an external envelope that verifies voter-identification (a naked ballot),(125) or if voters provide inaccurate or incomplete information on the ballots.(126)
In the 2020 presidential race, Joe Biden received a disproportionately high percentage of the mail-in and absentee ballots. Perhaps not coincidentally, we saw a dramatic fall in rejection rates in Pennsylvania, Nevada, and especially Georgia.
For example, in Nevada, the overall rejection rate dropped from 1.6%(127) in 2016 to 0.58% in 2020.(128) In Pennsylvania, the 2016 rejection rate of 1.0%(129) dropped to virtually nothing at 0.28%.(130) The biggest fall in the overall absentee ballot rejection rate came, however, in Georgia. Its rejection rate fell from 6.8%(131) in 2016 to a mere 0.34%(132) in 2020.
These dramatically lower rejection rates point to a conscious effort by Democrat election officials across these key battleground states to subject mail-in and absentee ballots to a lower level of scrutiny. That this kind of government conduct and gaming of our election system may have contributed to tipping the scales in favor of Joe Biden can be illustrated in this simple calculation:
In the 2020 race, Georgia election officials received 1,320,154 mail-in and absentee ballots. If these ballots had been rejected at the 2016 rate of 6.8% instead of the 2020 rate of 0.34%, there would have been 81,321 ballots rejected instead of the 4,489 ballots that were actually rejected.
Under the conservative assumption that 60% of these mail-in and absentee ballots went to Joe Biden,(133) this dramatic fall in the rejection rate provided Joe Biden with an additional 16,264 votes. That’s more than the margin of the alleged Biden victory in Georgia.
Excessively High Voter Turnout (at times exceeding 100%)
When there are more ballots cast than registered or eligible voters, fraud has likely taken place. During the 2020 presidential election, excessively high voter turnout occurred across all six swing states.
In analyzing this problem, it is important to distinguish between states that have same-day registration and those that don’t. States with same-day registration can plausibly have voter turnout that is higher than 100%. However, is impossible for that to happen in states without same-day registration without fraud having taken place.
Consider, then, Arizona which does not allow same-day voter registration. According to testimony from an MIT-trained mathematician, Candidate Biden may have received a weighted 130% total of Democrat votes in Maricopa County to help him win the state due to an algorithm programmed into the Dominion voting machines used there.(134)
Although Michigan does allow same-voter registration, voter turnout was still abnormally high. Here again, the Dominion voting system has been implicated. To wit:
Cybersecurity executive and former NASA analyst, Russ Ramsland, testified that in Wayne County, Michigan, where Dominion Voting Systems equipment was used, 46 out of 47 precincts in the county displayed greater than a 96% voter turnout. 25 out of those precincts showed a 100% voter turnout.(135)
Wisconsin, which also allows same-day voter registration, also reported abnormally high voter turnout when compared to 2016 numbers. For example, Milwaukee reported a record 84% voter turnout during the 2020 presidential election versus 75% in 2016.(136) Of the city’s 327 voting wards, 90 reported a turnout of greater than 90%.(137)
Statistically Improbable Vote Totals Based on Party Registration and Historical Patterns
The 2020 presidential election was characterized by strong partisan voting patterns consistent with historical patterns. As a rule, heavily Republican jurisdictions voted heavily for President Trump and heavily Democrat jurisdictions voted heavily for Joe Biden.
In some cases, however, there were instances where these partisan and historical patterns were violated. It is precisely in such instances where either outright fraud or machine inaccuracies or manipulations are most likely to be operative.
As one example of such statistically improbable vote totals, there are the results in Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District. In one precinct in the suburb of Queen Creek, the vote percent for President Trump dropped dramatically relative to 2016, from 67.4 to 58.5 percent.(138) This was attributed to an “unusually high” number of duplicate ballots.(139)
Unusual Vote Surges
Several unusual vote surges took place in the very early hours of the morning of November 4th in Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. An analysis conducted by the Voter Integrity Project of The New York Times publicly reported data on Election Day that showed several vote “spikes” that were unusually large in size with unusually high Biden-to-Trump ratios. Such spikes or surges could well indicate that fraudulent ballots had been counted.
In Georgia, for example, an update at 1:34 AM on November 4th showed 136,155 additional ballots cast for Joe Biden, and 29,115 additional votes cast for President Trump.(140) An update in Michigan at 3:50 AM on November 4th showed an update of 54,497 additional votes cast for Joe Biden, and 4,718 votes cast for President Trump.(141) And an update in Wisconsin at 3:42 AM on November 4th showed 143,379 additional ballots cast for Joe Biden, and 25,163 votes cast for President Trump.(142)
124 Parks, Miles, “Why Some Mail-In Ballots Are Rejected As Invalid,” NPR, October 4, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/04/920175418/why-some-mail-in-ballots-are-rejected-as-invalid
125 Livingston, Doug, “Why absentee ballots get rejected, and how to make yours count,” USA Today, September 21, 2020. https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2020/09/21/why-absentee-ballots-rejected-presidential-and-other-elections/3486553001/
126 Livingston, Doug, “Why absentee ballots get rejected, and how to make yours count,” USA Today, September 21, 2020. https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2020/09/21/why-absentee-ballots-rejected-presidential-and-other- elections/3486553001/
127 Election Assistance Commission, “The Election Administration and Voting Survey; A Report to the United States Congress,” 2016. https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/2016_EAVS_Comprehensive_Report.pdf
Office of Nevada Secretary of State Barbara K. Cegavske, “2020 General Election Turnout Mail Ballot Information,” https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=9058
129 Election Assistance Commission, “The Election Administration and Voting Survey; A Report to the United States Congress,” 2016. https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/2016_EAVS_Comprehensive_Report.pdf
U.S. Elections Project, “Pennsylvania Early Voting Statistics,” November 20, 2020. https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/PA.html
131 Election Assistance Commission, “The Election Administration and Voting Survey; A Report to the United States Congress,” 2016. https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/2016_EAVS_Comprehensive_Report.pdf
132 The Superior Court Of Fulton County State Of Georgia, Trump v. Raffensperger, December 4, 2020. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Trump-v.-Raffensperger.pdf
133 For example, in Pennsylvania, 3 out of every 4 absentee/mail-in ballots went to Joe Biden https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/mail-ballots-pennsylvania-election-trump-biden-20201119.html
And in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 84% of absentee/mail-in ballots went to Joe Biden https://www.tmj4.com/news/election-2020/no-joe-biden-did-not-get-100-percent-of-all-milwaukee-absentee-ballots
134 Heine, Debra,“Mathematician Says Biden May Have Received 130 Percent of the Democrat Vote in Maricopa County, Arizona,” December 2, 2020. https://themichiganstar.com/2020/12/02/mathematician-says-biden-may-have-received-130-percent-of-the-democrat-vote-in-maricopa-county-arizona/
135 Affidavit of Russel R., Dallas County, Texas. November 17, 2020. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.283580/gov.uscourts.gand.283580.7.1_2.pdf
136 Milwaukee City Wire News Service,“Analysis: Five Milwaukee wards report 89% turnout in 2020 presidential vote; Biden nets 146K votes in city,” November 4, 2020. https://mkecitywire.com/stories/564495243-analysis-seven- milwaukee-wards-report-more-2020-presidential-votes-than-registered-voters-biden-nets-146k-votes-in-city
137 Milwaukee City Wire News Service,“Analysis: Five Milwaukee wards report 89% turnout in 2020 presidential vote; Biden nets 146K votes in city,” November 4, 2020. https://mkecitywire.com/stories/564495243-analysis-seven- milwaukee-wards-report-more-2020-presidential-votes-than-registered-voters-biden-nets-146k-votes-in-city
138 Duda, Jeremy. “GOP lawsuit questions ‘duplicate’ ballots in Queen Creek,” San Tan Valley Sentinel, November 27, 2020. https://www.pinalcentral.com/san_tan_valley_sentinel/local_news/gop-lawsuit-questions-duplicate- ballots-in-queen-creek/article_ee9557d0-97e4-53e9-a269-5beb4b64370a.html
139 In the Superior Court of Arizona in and For the County of Maricopa, Kelli Ward v. Constance Jackson et al, November 24, 2020. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20417265/ward-v-jackson-complaint-and-petition- for-discovery.pdf
140 Voter Integrity Project, “Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020,” November 24, 2020. https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020
141 Voter Integrity Project, “Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020,” November 24, 2020. https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020
142 Voter Integrity Project, “Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020,” November 24, 2020. https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020