Ballot Watcher - 2020 General Election

My analysis of the Wisconsin election database, based on a dataset downloaded on November 10 cutoff, revealed a number of problems with the state's database, including missing information, mismanagement, no effective mechanism to prevent duplicate ballots, and the ability to create voter counts at any time. Absurd Download Fees - A Patriotic Citizen Bought the Dataset In the beginning of this article, I would briefly tell the story of this dataset. When a citizen in Wisconsin heard about fraud in his local election, he was concerned that his ballot had been tampered with and wanted to check the government database. The election dataset is publicly available ( https://badgervoters.wi.gov/ ) and can be purchased by anyone, but he was shocked when he opened the website and saw that the page stated that it cost $12,500 to download the voter list data, $12,500 to download the mail-in ballot data, and $25,000 to buy the entire data set. He was furious that a database that could be downlo...

Every state in the United States has a more or less transparent approach to elections and share much of the raw data with the public. Pennsylvania is no exception. In a state with many complaints of campaign fraud, voter data is updated weekly and can be downloaded for $20 per download. I downloaded four dataset snapshots of Pennsylvania's voter rolls updated on November 2, 9, 16, and 23 respectively to compare and analyze to see if the fraud complaints were reflected in the database. The comparison revealed that, as of November 20, the number of voters in the Pennsylvania database who had participated in this poll differed by more than one million from the total number of ballots published in the media. Voter Database Information Should be Consistent with The Total Number of Voters Let's start with some basic numbers: the database table contains over nine million rows of registered voters, and each voter profile contains 153 columns, including voter ID, name, address, party, s...

On November 9, I published an article in the Chinese Epoch Times titled "Pennsylvania Ballot Data Suspicions: 220-Year-Olds Vote by Mail" (in Chinese)   which pointed out that there was evidence of fraud in Pennsylvania's "2020_General_Election_Mail_Ballot_Requests_Department_of_State" dataset. The dataset was updated on November 6, among which 23,305 ballots were returned earlier than sent dates. The following day, an English-language Epoch reporter questioned the Pennsylvania government and ran a story based on the article, " Tens of Thousands of Pennsylvania Ballots Returned Earlier Than Sent Date: Researcher ". After the article was published, I found that between November 10 and 15, 23,305 ballots were still available on the official Pennsylvania State Government website for "ballots received by the government earlier than the date they were mailed out. When the dataset was updated on November 16, the 23,305 questionable ballots mentioned in ...

So I downloaded the dataset snapshot of the Nevada Registered Voter list. The cutoff time was dated around 10:00 a.m. PST on November 7. Expanded into a database to expand the analysis, the information presented here illustrates the litigation issues facing Nevada today. I just want to mention here a few of the issues observed. Let's start with the basic numbers: the database shows 2,031,274 voters registered (including about 900 who registered after November 3 and thus didn't vote). As of the evening of November 6th, a total of 1,394,715 (68.7%) had voted in the general election, and the total reported by the news on 15 November was 99 per cent, or 1,405,376 (69.2 per cent), so the numbers seem to be roughly in line. So which part of the process went wrong that has prevented the state from producing a convincing election result so far? Where was the dark area that breeds fraud?  Which group of voters should Matt Braynard's (director of data and strategy for the Trump ...