Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden outperformed other counties that used Dominion or HARTInterCivic voting machines, according to a study released by a data analyst.
In a report released Thursday (Dec. 17), the data analyst wrote, “Analytical evidence suggests that the use of Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems (DVS) Dominion x/ICX BMD and HARTInterCivic’s vote counting machines, had an abnormal effect on the election results.”
According to the profile accessed, the data analyst, who chose to remain anonymous for security reasons, has 30 years of experience in data analysis.
In his research, he used voting data and 2017 census data to create a Baseline Scenario to predict election outcomes. He then used this Baseline Scenario model to compare the results of the November general election.
The results showed that Biden’s approval rating exceeded the predicted line in 78 percent of the counties that used the two companies’ voting machines.
His analysis also showed that Biden received 5.6 percent more votes in these counties than he should have.
In a video presenting his findings, the expert said, “This is not supposed to happen …… in counties where Dominion voting machines were used, [Biden’s vote share] clearly exceeded too high. To me, that’s a compelling red flag …… that something is going on here that’s not right.”
He said the pattern of “plus 5.6 percent (for Biden)” is not due to the widespread use of said voting machines in counties with strong Democratic presence, as it can also be found in counties that strongly support President Trump (Trump) that use said voting machines.
The results of this study have not been peer-reviewed.
HARTInterCivic did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and Dominion Voting Systems declined to comment on the analysis. The company said, “Courts across the United States have repeatedly confirmed that there is no credible evidence of ballot switching or fraud in any voting process using the Dominion voting system.”
The analyst reported that he did not reach any conclusions about who was actually committing the irregularities.
However, he noted that if the potential irregularities revealed in his analysis were the result of deliberate activity, then there must be a vast conspiracy.
He said, “I see that the pattern is across many counties and cities, so my findings suggest that this fraud would have been operated by a large institution with national reach. That said, what we’re seeing can be more than just one local scanning operator that scans a box of ballots into the system three times.”
He did not specifically accuse any company or affiliated party of wrongdoing.
Recent Comments