We are starting to release our estimates of the differences between the expected statistical patterns and the reported totals in the 2016 presidential primaries. These are the percentages that our research indicates the official results could be off by.
In our report, An Electoral System in Crisis, released with the support of Election Justice USA, we provide considerable evidence that the vote totals from the 2016 primaries are in all likelihood not correct, and that the most likely explanation for a pattern to have this widespread of a presence is some kind of manipulation of the totals.
Fritz Scheuren, a member of the statistics faculty at George Washington University, and a former president of the American Statistical Association agreed. Dr. Scheuren has been a collaborator in our research, and is quoted in the report. Examining the data from the study, Scheuren said, “As a statistician, I find the results of the 2016 primary voting unusual. In fact, I found the patterns unexpected [and possibly even] suspicious. There is a greater degree of smoothness in the outcomes than the roughness that is typical in raw/real data.”
We got some email questions asking what the [ ] indicated had been changed from the original quote, so here is the quote exactly as Dr. Scheuren emailed it to me.
"In fact, I found the patterns unexpected. Suspicious even?"
I am in regular contact with Dr. Scheuren who has vetted much of our data. In one of our recent phone calls, he confirmed that the analysis strongly suggests that the results are not accurate, and weighed in on how close this election might have been if the votes had been reported accurately. He said, “It would have been a lot closer and Sanders might have won.”
In Louisiana, the data indicates the results could be off by as much as 36%.
In the graph above, we see not only an unexpected dip in Sanders percentages in the large precincts, but also an implausible dip in the percentage of all the less-established democratic candidates on the ballot. We received screen shots (below) from one of the less-established candidates Roque De La Fuente that corroborate the idea that those candidates are having their vote totals depressed, deleted, or transferred in some way. In Travis County Texas, with almost 10% of the votes reported, De La Fuente had over 8000 votes. But by the time 50% of the votes were reported his total had been reduced to 105 votes.
De La Fuente ends the race in that county with 138 votes. The race in Texas above is a tight race. Sanders wound up winning Travis county 51% - 48%. But the candidates were fighting for every vote here. So votes that may have been available from less-established candidates could have been useful.
In Illinois we see a change in the percentages in the large precincts, so great that the winner of the race would be reversed if the percentages from the small precincts were maintained in the large precincts. This suspicious increase of Clinton's, and other candidates' percentages in the large precincts, is the thrust of our research. We were unable to find a plausible demographic explanation for its presence in state after state. The analysis indicates that the results could be off by as much as 9% and that in this state, it would be large enough to change the outcome.
There are many other states that had suspect patterns this large or larger. We will be releasing more graphs soon.
Dr. Scheuren and I discussed what actions need to be taken in regard to this data. He suggested, "At least two states where these issues are evident should be manually counted – if there’s a meaningful difference between the official count and the recount, then maybe more states should be counted," and he emphasized again, "because it could change the outcome.”
As Hillary Clinton said tonight, "Our democracy isn't working the way it should."