A Peer-Reviewed Statistical Analysis of the 2020 Election – Does It Work?

Stephen Dinan’s Washington Times be reported about a co-worker being evaluated paper analyzed the results of the 2020 election and found Biden received 255,000 votes in excess. It was accepted for publication by the magazine Public’s Choice and written by Dr. John R. Lott Later Crime Prevention Research Center. The linked pdf may not match the final printed version of the paper to appear in the journal, but it is a peer-reviewed copy.

Both Dinan’s article and the article are worth reading. Unfortunately, the statistical analysis didn’t prove anything, but I found Lott’s analysis to be impeccable and compelling. His discussion of issues in several states with incoming and absentee ballots was interesting and informative. He makes the following points very clear.

1. Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin did not match the signature on the outer mail envelope with the official application. Some states, like Pennsylvania, accept ballots that are not enclosed in an outer envelope. These practices violate the law in many states and cannot verify the legitimacy of the ballot.
2. Lott compared ballots in adjacent constituencies, where one of the constituencies was accused of voter fraud, as well as with Georgia’s Fulton County, and found statistically significant evidence report on the results of extraordinary voting and absentee voting. In short, Trump’s absentee vote share in Fulton counties is down compared to adjacent counties. The biggest estimate of the depressed Trump votes is more than Biden’s profit in Georgia.
3. In Pennsylvania and other states, many voters trying to cast their ballots in person were told that they had cast an absentee ballot, indicating that someone had voted in their name. The difference found to be statistically significant in Georgia was not significant in Pennsylvania, but Pennsylvania was missing some of the data needed for the study, which was a problem.
4. In Nevada, 42,000 people voted more than once, 1,500 dead voted, and 19,000 people were homeless in Nevada.
5. In Wisconsin, 28,395 people voted without identification.
6. In Georgia, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, the rejection of invalid absentee ballots in 2020 is a fraction of what was rejected in 2016.

The most serious problems in the 2020 election were the procedural changes made, generally illegal, in absentee voting and voting by mail. This type of voting is not encouraged by the voting committee of Jimmy Carter and James Baker, 2005 (Carter & Baker, 2005, pp. 46-47). Past problems with absentee voting in Europe are much worse than in the US, at least before 2020, and as a result the practice is banned in 35 of the 47 countries in Europe. Europe. In the ten countries that allow this, voters must come in person and present a photo id to receive their absentee ballot. The remaining countries are temporarily allowing voting in limited circumstances. Europe has learned how unlikely it is that mail-in ballots are not secure, like we did.

Lott concludes that his study underestimates the extent of voter fraud because it assumes that no voter fraud occurs with direct voting. He also concluded that the total of Biden votes exceeded 142,000 to 368,000, enough to swing the election. The statistical methods used for the study seem valid to me, but as noted above, statistics are not proof. They suggest that the election should be investigated and that research shows that the permitted, and mostly illegal, absentee and mail-in voting procedures used in 2020 will never be. is repeated. I recommend everyone to read Dinan’s article and the article.

Carter, J., & Baker, J. (2005). Building trust in US elections. Taken from https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/1472/file/3b50795b2d0374cbef5c29766256.pdf