Analysis of 2024 election results in Clark County indicates manipulation

Here's the website for the analysis: https://electiontruthalliance.org/clark-county%2C-nv

That is better to scrutinize than the press release.

I'd also point out this

https://www.einpresswire.com/ai/press-release-generator

This could literally be AI fantasy. Shame on whoever created this.

I hit "flag" and I'd suggest everyone else do so as well.

> Could this be used to spoof the results

I don't really understand how would opens source software that checks the validity of ballots, or even generate fake ballots help in committing election fraud? The hard part is getting the fake ballot to the counting location, how the fake ballots is made, be it by machine or by hand is not particularly relevant, anyone can do that.

The repo seems to describe something doing the opposite, no? This is someone who wanted to ensure ballots were counted, not someone motivated to spoof them, right?

EDIT: posted my concern on bsky https://bsky.app/profile/patcon.bsky.social/post/3lhrwuw6dy2...

I’ve been skeptical of claims that Musk rigged the election, despite Trump basically bragging that he did. I figured he was just trying to “own the libs” and make us get mad over nothing.

Since Trump is extremely concerned about election security I’m sure he will send teams of people to investigate these anomalies.

Who are these sociopaths man like why would you create that

By 2023 all of the 2020 election claims had been thoroughly investigated by numerous Republican officials and committees and they found no actual evidence. Anyone who still believed at that point in the claims the election was stolen is at best willfully ignorant.

The analysis here is using publicly available data and they are pointing out statistical properties of that data that they say are highly indicative of manipulation. They are giving enough information for outside statisticians and others to reproduce their work.

This is not at all comparable to most of the claims after the 2020 election. The closest comparable claims in 2020 were some of the claims based on some vote distributions in some districts not obeying Benford's law. Those didn't hold up because given the demographics of those districts Benford's law would not be expected to hold.

(I wrote a web-based simple simulation using data from one of the states that the people basing claims on Benford's law were using in order to illustrate how much the distribution could differ from a Benford distribution. Anyone curious can find it here [1]. There's a link on that page to run it).

[1] https://github.com/tzs/georgia-benford-simulation

What's the political alignment of this group? All we have is a paid press release from a group founded in 2024, with an executive board consisting of "Jive, Lilli, and Nathan."

What they are showing is that not in-person ballots favored Harris--which is no surprise as on average Democrats are more concerned with Covid than Republicans as evidenced by the latter having twice the demographic-adjusted death rate from it (and probably actually higher because it is a diagnosis not liked in many Republican areas and it's easy enough to "overlook" the sudden death was actually from a clot from Covid infection.)

But this time around it's not going to face honest scrutiny in the courts so they won't have to admit they have nothing.

Edit: Mail voting is not more distributed. You can’t analyze the distribution of a set that small using its min and max, it has to be the full range like the other sets. Distribution approaches zero as bin size increases regardless of voting source. This no longer seems surprising.

> The same side that's alleging interference in 2024 suggested that to question election irregularities in 2020 was to reject democracy itself.

It is absolutely not the position of mainstream Democrats that the 2024 election was rigged, invalid etc. This ETA organization (founded December) is some fringe weirdo and doesn't represent dems.

> The same side that's alleging interference in 2024 suggested that to question election irregularities in 2020 was to reject democracy itself. I don't think the authors are going to convince anyone.

The people claiming election interference in 2020 had every chance to provide any piece of evidence, and they never could.

Democracy demands a lot of the electorate. We have to be willing to suppress our own values and accept those of our opponents, when the vote doesn't go our way.

It's reasonable for all of us to expect that the election was secure, with a very high degree of certainty. When people aren't willing to consider the possibility of shenanigans, or that the systems* we're using might be insecure, we shouldn't be surprised that people are unwilling to do the democratic thing and accept the winner.

*by "system", I don't just mean the voting machines themselves, but also the whole process surrounding the collection and tallying of votes.

> Articles like this are pure chutzpah.

I shouldn't spend time on this but it seems from context you think that word means "bullshit" and it doesn't. I'm sorry for pointing it out but it bothers me.

> "But there's evidence this time and there wasn't in 2020!" Well, the other side would argue the opposite. We're not going to get anywhere this way.

We might be able to by actually looking at the evidence. This is a really common problem I see among people who through good intentions avoid controversial topics.

Sure scientists say the moon is real, but Keith on Facebook says it's a hologram. I guess we should rule out any evidence from the entire field of astronomy until they can dispel even the appearance of misinformation.

Their specific claim is odd, it's that the record of every machine in the county showed an expected random pattern of votes for the first 300 or so votes ..

( "random" here means more chaotic and unpredictable )

after which there was a more correlated bias toward one candidate that had a stong early trend toward a particular outcome (consistent clumping with little bounce).

The assertion is that this rarely seen in "real free voting data".

In a single picture: https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/9087f51c-d3bd-4002-9943-797...

The main consideration is at the beginning: the stats largely resemble the patterns of verified instances of voter fraud, as in Russia and Georgia.

It seems that you're suggesting some fairly obvious factors working against Harris weren't considered by an organization whose entire purpose is to sniff out voter fraud. Are you suggesting that they overlooked such an obvious detail, or that they're willfully ignoring it?

More specifically, their claims are nonsense and (at best) wishful thinking.

You are missing most of their analysis. The surprising anomaly (the so called "Russian Tail") appears in early votes but not the Election Day votes or mail-in ballots. There analysis is worth reading again to catch what you missed. Another commenter has posted their colab notebook, so you can dig in if you want to see the details

"He knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers," Trump told the crowd. "And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide."

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-elon-musk-voting-machi...

Regardless of the ETA's analysis, or the DOGE employees ballot software, that comment by Trump on its own raises the suspicion that this should be investigated and not immediately flagged, downvoted and dismissed