Photos: Pennsylvania Data Shows That 109k Of The Mail In Ballots Were Returned BEFORE They Were Mailed

Opinion

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are the only two swing states where officials can begin processing and counting the millions of absentee ballots only on Election Day, which delaying complete results for several days. (In a third crucial swing state, Michigan, clerks can begin processing ballots only the day before Election Day.)

These elections are one of the worst in our history as mail-in ballots caused a huge mess!
As Zerohedge reported today the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to consider a GOP challenge claiming that Republican observers were unable to oversee ballot counting, thereby invalidating hundreds of thousands of votes, according to Reuters.

The decision to hear the case is separate from a challenge to the PA Supreme Court’s ruling regarding ballots received after election day.

The news comes as Rudy Giuliani says at least 50 GOP witnesses say they were ‘corralled’ by Philadelphia election officials on election day and ‘weren’t able to see a single ballot’ counted behind closed doors. He claims that the roughly 800,000 votes counted after that ‘are invalid.’

But also Pennsylvania data shows more problems as some of the mail-in ballots were returned BEFORE they were mailed, on the same day or next day. I marked such ballots as “Suspicious” (RED) in the plot. There are 109421 (3.53%) “Suspicious” ballots.

Data is taken from here: https://data.pa.gov/Government-Efficiency-Citizen-Engagement/2020-General-Election-Mail-Ballot-Requests-Departm/mcba-yywm

 

If only look at those “suspicious” mail-in ballot – most of them come from PHILADELPHIA and LEHIGH – around 44%

Now let’s look at Mail Application Type. OLMAILV-This is a mail ballot application that was submitted online. MAILIN-This is a mail-in ballot application. “Suspicious” ballots have a higher ratio of Mail-In compared to Online than normal ballots.

You would expect that under normal circumstances (and if there is a perfectly legal explanation for “suspicious ballots”) the turnaround time should not depend on how the ballot was requested? Also, the table above is colored by %age for “% of Total(Y)” – Y for “suspicious”
Actually, if we look at the distribution of mail-in vs online requests, you can see that anomaly starts for ballots that were received whole FIVE days after they were sent. This increases the number of “suspicious” ballots.

Another anomaly. There is a group of around ~1000 ballots that stands out. I called them “Fast” ballots. Suddenly a group of ballots started arriving much faster than before. They are highlighted in the plot.

This is mostly due to: CVO – absentee ballot application for an overseas civilian voter. F – absentee application for an individual who qualifies to vote for federal offices in federal election years. M – absentee ballot application for a military voter.

It seems strange that military and overseas ballots suddenly started arriving THREE days faster than the general population. The median turnaround for normal ballots (excluding “suspicious”) is 14 days, for “fast” it is 11 days. Means are 16.3 and 12.96 days respectively.
One more observation. This time I overlaid the initial plot with a data density plot. You can see that the main injection of the suspicious ballots was around 10/26-10/27 (Mon-Tue) for Mailed Date and it was mostly the same day ballots. I estimate around 43k ballots in that group.

I was looking at the registration requirements in Pennsylvania, you don’t need a physical address.

Could be why the suspect group of registrations was done by mail. You have to mail it in if you don’t have an actual address.

These FIVE counties mostly dropped their ballots as SAME DAY or close on 09/27-10/08 and then on 10/19. The 10/26-27 dump of same-day ballots come from a different place.

These are the counties where “suspicious” – i.e. SAME DAY ballots, have a significant demographic deviation from the rest. Specifically – much younger (Students from Penn and Bucknell?) and much older people. And it’s only a subgroup of all the “suspicious” ballots.
What do you think?

Probably this way is going to be more telling. I put a smoother instead of bar chart and marked peaks that show as suspicious in my analysis.

Scroll down to leave a comment below.