I'm a physicist so my natural inclination is to dig into numbers. As of right now, the Associated Press is reporting that Joe Biden has received just a hair above 80 million votes, Donald Trump has received 74 million votes, Jo Jorgensen has received 1.86 million votes, Howie Hawkins has received 400,000 votes, and other candidates have received collectively 440,000 votes. The grand total of presidential ballots as of right now is 159 million votes. For reference, the 2016 election totaled ~136 million.
The turnout as of right now is between 67-69% depending on final tallies. For reference, the last time turnout was higher than this projection was 1900. In the last 100 years, the 1960 election between Nixon and JFK - which was notorious for exhibiting fraud - yielded the highest turnout so far at 62.8%.
I analyzed turnout in the last 100 years since 1920 was the first presidential race a majority of American men and women voted in. I only used presidential races.
-
The average turnout in the last 100 years has been 55.3%. The turnout since the Civil Rights amendment has been 55.6%, and since the 26th amendment (which allowed under 21s to vote) the mean was reduced to 53.9%.
-
The standard deviation since 1920 is +/- 4.10. In fact, since 1920, only 5 races have been greater than 1 standard deviation. Only 1 race has been greater than 2 standard deviations, and that was this year: 2020. In fact, 2020 is 3 standard deviations. No race has been 2-3 standard deviations below average, either.
-
The voting-eligible population of the United States in Obama's 2008 victory was 230,000,000. The voting-eligible population this year is 239,000,000. That means, hypothetically, if Biden won 100% of all new voters within the eligibility range, he would still need to win an additional 1.5 million existing voters from 2008.
-
In 2016, a maximum of 56% of new voters supported Hillary Clinton. In 2008, a maximum of 65% of new voters supported Barack Obama. According to the Brookings Institute, Biden received about 61% of new voters. Since there are 9 million new voters, the turnout was 67-69%, and Biden received 61% of this demographic, he could have gained between 3.7 million (minimum) or 3.8 million (maximum) from the new voter demographic. Notice how I'm intentionally assuming this turnout rate is reliable. In this situation, Biden received 7 million from voters who were eligible in 2008 than Obama did to make the AP numbers agree with the findings.
Sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections
Further reading👇
https://thedonald.win/p/11QS7a3QAQ/voter-fraud-nov-25th-6-months-of/
Right but this is the first time we've done mail-in. You have to account for that factor, whatever it is.
Good point. I thought of that. Many people falsely believe Colorado, Oregon and Washington have the highest rates because each is a mail voting state and almost all of their votes were mail ballots. They were the first states to adopt this program, after all.
I dug through Oregon's records. Oregon brought about mail-in ballots in 1987. I did the calculations. Oregon's turnout before it adopted mail-in ballots was 75.7% with a standard deviation of 6.7%. The turnout this year was 78.5% -- just barely above the old mean.
You see the exact same behavior from Colorado and Washington. Mail-in ballots increase turnout, but not by 3 standard deviations. We don't see that in the states that attempted it before this year.
In 1980, Washington's turnout was 79.27%. In 1984, Washington's turnout was 78.59%. Skip ahead to 2016. It was 78.76%. The average turnout goes up but not by much.
Furthermore, the NATIONAL AVERAGE should not go up that much when so many states didn't change to mail-in ballots.
https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/Voter_Turnout_History_General_Election.pdf
based physicist pede over here, backing up his claims by running further numbers.
Respect.
Awesome work! I talked to an election official (red county in a red state) before the election and he said something that surprised me. He said that a voting population doesn't change who they vote for based on how they vote and mail in votes should be similar in outcome to in person. Also, if the difference in outcome between in person and mail in is more than 2 points, then he would expect fraud. Is there a way to use in person vs mail in data to get a comparison?
Edit to clarify: he was disagreeing before the election that mail in votes would be mainly Democrat votes. He saw no reason a pandemic would change that.
Yes, very large states didn’t change, Florida and Texas for instance.
Interesting analysis but I am not that skeptical of historically high turnout. We've never had a media like this and between the scamdemic lockdowns and the full court press of the media push for far left radicalization (manifested in the worst riots since the 60s) it's certainly possible.
By me the lines were ridiculous. Maybe that was just for show but I do think a lot of people voted
I'm more curious about what happened in swing states where Biden got mysterious surges at certain times and in certain countiesm
There was historically high turnout for our President. Open your eyes, the rest was fraud by the Democrats. Did you not see the rally’s?
I appreciate the skepticism, but 3 standard deviations is a lot. Like A LOT a lot.
wait JFK was elected by fraud and then they killed him?
Pretty sure both JFK and Nixon were both stuffing boxes.
How did you come to the voting age population? Remember only 94% of so of the adult population will be citizens. 24% Roughly of the 330 million population is 0-17 years old. I get 229 million, which changes the voter trunout signifigantly. Also according to state reporting, 200 million people are registered to vote, so does anyone believe 9/10 18 and over are registered?
Really interesting! I applaud your ability to decode statistics.