Forest County, Pennsylvania:
Very, very unlikely for the in person vote to be exactly equal to the calculated Total Expected Vote!
votes: 2621
tot_exp_vote: 2621
( total expected vote )
Almost certainly evidence of vote 'capping', which was much more obvious and pervasive in Michigan.
Cheaters may have missed changing the vote target for this county to something else to hide the cheat.
NY Times news feed snipit: {"fips":"42053","name":"Forest","votes":2621,"absentee_votes":0,"reporting":8,"precincts":9,"absentee_method":"Merged into voters' home precincts and released with cumulative results","eevp":100,"tot_exp_vote":2621,"eevp_value":">98%","eevp_display":">98% reported","eevp_source":"edison","turnout_stage":6,"absentee_count_progress":"all","absentee_outstanding":null,"absentee_max_ballots":302,"provisional_outstanding":null,"provisional_count_progress":null,"results":{"bidenj":715,"trumpd":1864,"jorgensenj":34,"write-ins":8},"results_absentee":{"bidenj":0,"trumpd":0,"jorgensenj":0,"write-ins":0},"last_updated":"2020-11-04T10:44:02Z","leader_margin_value":43.83823,"leader_margin_display":"R+44","leader_margin_name_display":"Trump +44","leader_party_id":"republican","margin2020":43.83823,"votes2016":2419,"margin2016":43.7,"votes2012":2312,"margin2012":21.06},
I looked at every single reported state and precinct available in the US from NYT data (states and precincts time-series data), and I found some other places where there were little to no votes other than that of in-person. I am not sure if that is intentional as it relates to the fraud or not. It could very well be something else such as truly accidental errors in how those precincts report data, or foul play.
See this imgur album for my breakdown by county describing each ballot type for FL, GA, and NC (created using NYT precinct data):
https://imgur.com/a/QVIDNpc
In those graphs, look at:
Anyways, as I stated before, this might just be true unintentional messiness in NYT's processing of the data, or in the reporting of data from precincts in various counties. I'm really not sure at this moment, though I do have hunches. It's best to be cautious about our accusations unless we're absolutely sure in our analyses...we're not the left after all.
I think some of the counties in some of the states may have either misreported their results, or the hired temps. typing the results into the Edison Research system, may have been clueless.
Obviously the Lowndes County, Georgia results seem totally messed up.
The eevp (or total expected vote) is typically ~70%, at least in Michigan.
Lowndes county supposedly has 75,356 registered voters. ( source: www.valdostadailytimes.com ).
This would give an tot_exp._vote of ~52,749 votes using 70% figure.
But: tot_exp._vote listed is: 46,355
( 46,355÷75,356 = 0.6151467 =~ 61.5% )
( https://archive.is/n1UhH )
But this ambiguity and/or confusion may be exactly what the alleged voting cheaters want, as they can always fall back on the "blame the election day data entry temp."
Aren't they clever.
Who knows, as supposedly a lot of all of the Dominion systems had modems and/or internet access, supposedly to help report results.
But then again maybe they just tried to fix the election with lots of hidden vote ballot Files, swapping, etc. and minimizing the Trump vote in the small but numerous Strong Trump Counties.
Obviously the Internet connections allows someone access to the Dominion systems and potentially rig the election, and maybe leave just enough clues to cause deep resentment in the false allegedly loosing party, "best case" for them, causing a civil war in the U.S.
Good looking work, from what I can see. How can I get a good of your charts on imgur.com with a better Resolution?
I'm just saying that statistically it is very, very unlikely to have the exact in person voter tally equal to the Total Estimated Vote, especially in Michigan where's there's maybe 20 or more counties with this same problem.
Solution: audit all counties by a real hand count in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and the other 4 states in question. Even a random hand count, inspecting each paper and electronic ballot, if possible, will either indicate and verify this possible voting ballot anamoly.