Our Michigan report is in the system! It’s been put on line here. Part of it is repetition, and can be viewed in this original post: Stats I Did For the Sidney Powell Suits: 150 Thousand Missing Votes.
Part of it is brand new and presents striking evidence. Stick around until the end, which is the most visually impressive part.
Data from counties in Michigan where absentee votes by candidate were available were gathered. The counties were: (1) Eaton, (2) Grand Traverse, (3) Ingham, (4) Leelanau, (5) Macomb, (6) Monroe, (7) Oakland, and (8) Wayne. The data was dug up by Tom Davis, who did all the hard work of gathering it; he authored his own take on it, too. Apparently, these were the only sources he could find.
In Eaton and Oakland votes could be either straight party (e.g. choose all Democrats for all contests) or variable ballots (e.g. choose candidates individually). These were treated separately.
The data sources are:
Eaton (XML): https://results.enr.clarityelections.com//MI/Eaton/106278/271203/reports/detailxls.zip
Grand Traverse (PDF): http://www.co.grand-traverse.mi.us/DocumentCenter/View/15427/PCT-Results
Ingham (PDF): https://ingham.box.com/shared/static/icj9frqxgiybwm1s596y6ridcdfy0fp7.pdf
Leelanau (PDF): https://www.leelanau.gov/downloads/statementofvotescastrpt_official_11.pdf
Macomb (HTML): https://electionresults.macombgov.org/m31/5-bd-print.html
Monroe (PDF): https://www.co.monroe.mi.us/Clerk/Elections/2020%20Nov%20Official%20StatementOfVotesCast.pdf
Oakland (XML): https://results.enr.clarityelections.com//MI/Oakland/105840/271739/reports/detailxls.zip
Wayne (PDF): https://www.waynecounty.com/documents/clerk/!electionsum_11032020.pdf
The percent of the total vote for each candidate (not the overall total, but the candidate total) that was absentee was calculated across each precinct or district within each county. The data within a county was sorted by the absentee percentages for Biden, low to high, for ease in display only.
Next, we plot the percent absentee votes for both Biden (D:blue) and Trump (R:red). This is in shown next. The precinct numbers are here arbitrary, and reflect the sorting of the data.
*Do not get hung on the blue line being smooth! It is merely an artifact of sorting the precincts by Democrat proportions. It shows how much the Rs tracks the Ds. The red line would be smooth if instead we sorted by Rs.
Almost never does the percent of absentee ballots cast for Trump exceed the percent cast for Biden. There are only rare exceptions, such as in very small precincts where we’d expect totals to be more variable.
If absentee voting behavior was the same for those voting for Trump and Biden, the chance that absentee ballots for Biden would almost always be larger would, given the large number of precincts here, be vanishingly small.
Thus, either the absentee voting behavior of those voting for Biden was remarkably consistently different, or there is another explanation, such as manipulation of totals.
More proof of this is had by examining the ratios of absentee ballot totals in each precinct. This is pictured next.
Again, the precinct numbers are arbitrary and reflect the same sorting as before. The ratios are amazingly similar across precincts.
Only 36 precincts out of the 2,146 examined had 0% absentee ballots. These are obviously not shown in the figure (because of divide-by-zero possibilities).
As mentioned, the ratio of Biden to Trump absentee votes is astonishingly consistent. The mean ratio inside each county is printed in the figure, along with the number of precincts.
If voting behavior was similar for both candidates, we’d expect this ratio to be 1, with some variability across precincts, with numbers both above and below 1. Instead, the ratios are almost always greater than 1, and with a tight mean about 1.5 to 1.6 or so. This indicates the official tallies of absentee ballots for Biden were about 50-60% higher almost everywhere, with very little variation, except in smaller counties were the ratio was slightly higher.
Naturally, such behavior could be genuine, but the possibility of programmatic changes in the tallies cannot be dismissed, either. The data is consistent with both hypotheses.
Data from 2016 was next compared to that from 2020. Fewer counties were available.
The next picture compares the Democrat versus Republican absentee percentages for 2020 and 2016, with the precincts again sorted by Democrat absentee percentage. The precinct numbers are arbitrary, and the sorting helps aid a visual comparison. The Republican choppiness is only because of the sorting by Democrat totals.
Update Typos fixed in headers! They were all in the right order and numbers right. Yet another set of typos inserted by my enemies.
And the next looks at the ratio of Democrat to Republican absentee percentages, also for 2020 and 2016.
It is clear that in 2016 Republican and Democrat absentee ballot behavior was identical, or nearly so across all precincts. That is, it varied by precinct, but within precincts it was much the same or either party. The percent plots was almost the same for any precinct in 2016, and it rose for both parties in 2020; however, it jumped much higher, and at a consistent rate in 2020, only for Democrats.
This is proved in the ratio plot. The D to R absentee rate across precincts averaged about 1 in 2016. Behavior in precincts differed, just as you’d expect, but overall there was no consistent difference.
In 2020, however, there is a marked and consistent difference, with Democrat ballots being marked as absentee at rates about 50% higher than Republicans. This is very strange, and most unexpected and not explained readily by simple changes in voting behavior.
Yes, both Democrats and Republicans were likely panicked and afraid of the coroandooom, and so more voted absentee. But were Democrats exactly 1.5 times as panicked and afraid everywhere? It beggars imagination.
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here