A brief note. I’ve been asked to examine the Pennsylvania votes. That work is ongoing. Update See below for a serious critique of Benford’s law.

I’m showing here (with permission) the one analysis I found most curious.

This is official county-level timed voting data that started at 2020-11-04 11:00:00, a day after the election, to 2020-11-07 11:29:00 which is Saturday night. That is, these are all late vote counts. They start, county by county, where the vote left off on election night.

This is a picture of the running totals by the time the votes were added, summed across all counties, during those time periods. They do not start at 0, but at the totals given after election night.

The early gains for Biden are from, mainly, Philadelphia, Allegheny, Montgomery, Chester and Berks counties. A simple plot (click to see: it’s large) shows the size of vote additions for both candidates, when new vote totals (greater than 0) were added by county (and not all counties added votes after election day).

All goes well for Trump until 2020-11-04 21:15:00 when he loses just under 10,000 votes, but curiously from three different counties simultaneously: -1,063 Allegheny; -2,972 Bucks; -7,135 Chester. Biden never lost any votes (at least, in this late voting).

Understand that this does not mean the decreases happened at this time, but that they were recorded in the official data as happening at that time. And the same is true for our next observation.

Biden’s next curiosity was the big increase of 27,396 votes at 2020-11-06 08:53:00 over one consecutive reporting period. This bump is just like the blue-red F-memes you have seen: this only seems more spread out because of the finer time scale used.

These two curiosities account for a 37,263 vote swing for Biden. Biden’s total, as of the end of this data, was 3,344,528, and Trump’s 3,310,326. Biden therefore “won”, in this dataset anyway, by 34,202 votes.

Biden could not have pulled ahead without the curiosities noted above.

There is more to come. Stick around.

Update Benford’s law is only useful in uncovering multiple and on-going instances of cheating. As in somebody consistently cooking financial books. As I showed above, assuming the curiosities are cheats, it only took two instances to tip the balance. Benford’s law will never pick this up: never.

I’m skeptical of what I’m seeing in other analyses, because if somebody turns something up with Benford, it implies that many, many vote totals were tampered with, which increases the possibilities of getting caught. And you don’t need to tamper with many. Only a few.