PA's Minor Party/Write-In Vote Steal

PA's write-in vote total fell by 113,417 votes in 2020

                         

The decline in Minor Party/Write-in votes in the Pennsylvania 2020 Presidential election has gone largely unnoticed by the majority of analysts and therefore by the media.   

In the 2016 Presidential race, the Green Party, Constitution Party, and write-ins accounted for 121,089 votes in Pennsylvania.   But in 2020, the bottom seemingly fell out and only 7,672 votes were cast by those parties by write-in ballot according to the Keystone State's official results posted by Edison Research and also reported by Reuters.   A thorough analysis of the Edison Research transactional results determined that Pennsylvania should have counted approximately 159K write-in votes.

 If these votes were switched, and the evidence strongly suggests they were, then Biden's come from behind victory in Pennsylvania came as a result of violations of the 14th Amendment rights of those voters.

While the low number of write-in votes strains credulity, even more improbable is the report that only 453 of those write-in votes were by absentee ballot -- out of 2.6 million ballots mailed in.

The situation with the Green Party of Pennsylvaniao is particularly suspicious. 

The Greens were kept off the Pennsylvania ballot for technicalities (5-2 PA Supreme Court party line vote with Democrat majority).   As a result, they had to write in their Presidential candidate, Howie Hawkins.   

According to official records posted the PA Department of State (PA DOS), the Greens mailed in 2,541 ballots.  If all 453 write-in votes cast in Pennsylvania improbably went to Hawkins, you can conclude that 82% of those Green Party absentee voters -- who had ample time to fill out their ballots -- simply chose not to write in Hawkins.

This situation defies common sense and logic, especially considering that the Green Party gathered 8,000 signatures to get its candidate placed on the ballot.  

What happened to those Greens?   Let's take a look at the official election results (reported by Edison Research) for counties where the Green Party has chapters.

The analysis reveals only 7 of 23 counties with Green Party chapters had write-in votes. 

Interestingly, only Lebanon and Northampton counties (yellow highlights) tabulated write-in votes from absentee ballots.   However, the absentee write-in total from those two counties fell 124 votes short of the official total of 453  -- and there were no other counties with write in votes in the official results.

This is rather undeniable evidence that the system didn't tabulate write-in votes correctly.

Three counties without Green Party chapters (Clearfield, Lebanon, and Montour) tabulated write-in votes.  The Democrat dominated counties of Philadelphia and Montgomery did not record a write-in vote in the official count.   Again, rather undeniable evidence that the system wasn't working properly.

And it gets worse.

Analysis of county level election data revealed that 610* votes were cast for Hawkins, but that number simply isn't credible when compared to how other Green Party candidates fared in the races for state-wide offices.  On average, those candidates received 77,814 votes.

*610 is based on the county-level reports that identified write-in votes for Hawkins. Counties did not distinguish between in-person and absentee votes.

Again, note that the "missing" Green Party votes are nearly the margin of victory for 2020.   Numerical "coincidences" are unlucky if you happen to undergo an audit.   

A rational person would expect that a mail-in voter, who has ample time to fill in a ballot, would write in the name of their party's candidate if the candidate was not on the ballot.   As you see below, the Green Party down ballot candidates received between roughly 30K to 38K votes, but the Presidential candidate received less than 500* (generously (and improbably) assuming all absentee write-in votes went to Hawkins).

*453 is the total absentee write-in votes reported by Edison Research.  For purpose of the analysis, all 453 were assigned to the Green Party. 

In the other parties, we observe more rational behaviors across the candidates.  While there should be some drop off due to Hawkins' status as a write-in, the magnitude of the differences between Hawkins and the other candidates is not credible.  

The numbers simply don't make sense.

There is supporting evidence beyond numbers supporting the case that the steal of Green Party votes was premeditated in 2020 -- and that it also occurred in 2016.    And not just in Pennsylvania, but in Arizona as well.

Keeping the Green Party off the ballot in 2020

Arizona, Pennsylvania, and other states took legal action to keep Greens off the presidential ballot

Despite a draconian lockdown related to the COVID-19 virus, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania refused requests from minor parties (e.g. Libertarians, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc.) to relax the signature requirements for minorparties to get on the ballot.  The Libertarian Party and the Green Party overcame the lockdowns and gathered enough signatures (5,000)  to get on the ballot.

After refusing to waive the signature requirement, Commonwealth went to court arguing that the deadline for receiving ballots should be extended three days due to COVID-19 impacts to the United States Postal Service.  As a result, the PA Supreme Court overruled existing state election laws and extended the deadline in a September 17, 2020 ruling.

 

The Democrat Party then engaged in a legal case against the Green Party over the validity of signatures gathered for inclusion on the ballot, alleging that the signatures were from dead people, wrong addresses, and illegible signatures.   

After the Greens provided evidence to disprove the Democrats charges, the Democrats persisted with legal action to keep only the GP Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates off the ballot (citing irregularities in paperwork).  On September 17, 2020, the PA Supreme Court bounced the GP candidates off the ballot in yet another 5-2, party-line vote.

With the Green Party relegated to writing in its presidential candidate, all of those votes would be subjected to ballot adjudication in the 2020 election (this was also the case in Arizona).

Ballot adjudication:  One of many mechanisms used in the 2020 election fraud

Ballot adjudication requires two reviewers & that didn't happen in all cases.  Philadelphia pictured above.

While Dominion Voting Systems (DVS) has seemingly gotten all of the attention in the aftermath of the 2020 election, all election systems have an adjudication feature (that enables reassignment of votes).  You can read more about the feature in PA's election systems certification documents here.

Here is an excerpt from the certification document ES&S EVS 6030 (this system was used in Philadelphia and 39 other PA counties):

Jurisdictions can make use of the Electionware adjudication functionality to adjudicate write-ins and evaluate questionable ballots, contests or selections to determine voter intent. Any decisions made during the adjudication process must be agreed upon by a team of at least two reviewers authorized by the election official following election code requirements. The election official should when necessary consult the paper ballot to assist with determinations made during adjudication. In the event of a recount, the voter verified paper ballots must be used for the count.

In a properly administered and secure election, the adjudication function would work as described above, but the evidence in 2020 clearly showed that two reviewers were not looking over the shoulder of the adjudicator -- and the PA Supreme Court ruled (5-2) that meaningful observation as described above was not required.   

As a result of that ruling, a dishonest election worker would have carte blanche to defy the voter's intent on a write-in vote or any other vote sent for adjudication.  Blank ballots, misaligned ballots, mismarked ballots, and ballots of the wrong paper sizes/formats can all be sent for adjudication.  These vote reassignments could be many and small, or a huge vote dump.

In addition, malware can be introduced that can alter votes.  Hackers can send adjudication files to remote locations, download them into excel files, vote en masse, then re-upload them into the system

An audit in Antrim County, Michigan revealed 68% of ballots (10,667 of 15,676) were sent to adjudication.  Election workers in Maricopa County, Arizona testified that 12% of ballots (approximately 186,000) were sent to adjudication.  The margin of victory for Biden in Arizona was under 12,000 votes.

In Pennsylvania, a preliminary analysis of Edison Research time series election data revealed that approximately 250,000 ballots underwent adjudication in batches ranging from approximately 100 to 6,500 votes.   After subtracting out the Trump and Biden votes that were cycled through adjudication, a total of 159,986 votes were leftover.  A forensic audit of the voting systems in Pennsylvania would provide the exact number of adjudicated ballots.

The Pennsylvania cover up

Pennsylvania's election web-sites do not provide the capability to view write-in voting results

In our national Presidential elections,  it is most common for everyone, including international observers and media, to focus only on the top two candidates.  As such, the media reports and updates tend only to show minute by minute results for the Democrat and Republican candidate and so do the results published by most U.S. media outlets. 

People who analyze the results of the election looking for irregularities tend to focus there as well.  However if you're going to manipulate an election. the best place to do it is where no one is looking -- or in Pennsylvania's case -- where people are either unable to look or will have much difficulty in doing so. 

Pennsylvania's election web-site maintained by its Department of State does not provide an option for viewing write-in votes nor does its election reporting center web-site.    One must look at the unofficial results from 67 counties in order to review the write-in votes.

The unofficial county results showed that 17,519 write-in votes were tabulated -- about 10,000 more than the official results.  The unofficial results revealed that there were no write-in votes in Montgomery County.  Other counties not reporting write-ins included Blair, Clarion, Columbia, Greene, Indiana, Juniata, Lehigh, Pike, Potter, Snyder, Washington, and Wyoming.  

These results are highly improbable as Montgomery County has a Green Party chapter as does Lehigh County (combined with Northampton County in the Lehigh Valley Chapter).   

It is almost certain that votes were switched through the adjudication process in those Green Party counties. 

"A National Disgrace"

Stating that Pennsylvania’s election system was “a national disgrace,” Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein called for forensic audits of the voting machines in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.   

Stein's totals in those battleground states were compared with her totals in two each of solid red and blue states.  The analysis revealed that Stein fared far worse in the battlegrounds than in the solid states.  

*Greens did not run in all districts, therefore the vote counts are substantially lower than in the US Senate races

In Pennsylvania she received an average of 114,668 fewer votes than other Greens on the statewide ticket.  Interestingly, that number is practically the same as the number of "missing" write-in votes for Pennsylvania in 2020 (i.e., 113,417).   Arizona and Michigan likely cheated Stein out of around 50,000 votes each.   In the solid red and blue states, Stein's total votes are similar to other Green Party candidates.

Clinton and her advisors were “intensely reluctant” to question the integrity of the voting system and she did not support Stein’s efforts for investigations in Michigan and Pennsylvania.  

Clinton eventually supported Stein’s efforts in Wisconsin after her supporters and computer scientists provided evidence of voting machine irregularities.   

"THE ACADEMICS PRESENTED FINDINGS SHOWING THAT IN WISCONSIN, CLINTON RECEIVED 7 PERCENT FEWER VOTES IN COUNTIES THAT RELIED ON ELECTRONIC-VOTING MACHINES COMPARED WITH COUNTIES THAT USED OPTICAL SCANNERS AND PAPER BALLOTS. BASED ON THIS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, CLINTON MAY HAVE BEEN DENIED AS MANY AS 30,000 VOTES; SHE LOST WISCONSIN BY 27,000.”

However, it was safe for Clinton to support an audit in Wisconsin because there were no other Green Party candidates in state-wide races that might tip the auditors to Stein's votes being stolen.  Clinton election attorney Marc Elias stated,

 "Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves."

Stein's experts raised similar concerns over computerized voting systems. 

Poorvi Vora of George Washington University stated that vote-scanning machinery could be infected with malware that changes the record of votes, and a manual count of paper ballots would be the only way to know if there had been vote manipulation. Professor Philip Stark from the University of California also claimed that Trump's winning margin in Wisconsin could easily be within the margin of error for optical voting systems.

Stein’s campaign argued that if voting machines were tampered with, using those same machines to re-tabulate the votes “risks tainting the recount process."  A Wisconsin judge refused to order a statewide hand recount, but allowed counties to use a method of their choosing.   Trump gained votes in the recount.

In Michigan, Stein's recount was halted when a Circuit Court judge ruled she didn't have standing because she received only 1% of the vote.  

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Diamond rejected Stein's request for a recount in Pennsylvania, writing that her claims of suspected hacking of the election "bordered on the irrational."

Unfortunately, Judge Diamond and many others in the legal profession have no idea how easy it is to hack an election.   They also don't understand how difficult it is to hide the fraudulent election results from statisticians. 

 Ray Blehar, March 5, 2021, 3:15 PM EST

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update 5:52 PM on March 5, 2021.

ICYMI:  The Democrat's go-to election lawyer, Marc Elias, claimed that the voting machines in upstate New York didn't properly count the votes for his client and incumbent NY-22 Congressional Representative Anthony Brindisi.

In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes, (supra at 4), and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi, (id.). In addition, Oswego County admitted in a sworn statement to this Court that its tabulation machines were not tested and calibrated in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020 General Election as required by state law and necessary to ensure that the counts generated by tabulation machines are accurate.

My team investigated the NY-22 election.  Read our report here.