The Epoch Times posted an article yesterday (updated today) about the Dominion Voting Systems and how they impacted the 2020 presidential election. This information needs to go viral. It impacts all Americans who voted with the understanding that their vote would count.
The article reports:
A man who’s made a living developing fraud detection algorithms has discovered a curious phenomenon: Counties that started using Dominion Voting Systems machines have on average moved by 2 to 3 points to the Democrat presidential candidate from the Republican compared to counties that didn’t adopt the machines.
The difference persisted even after he controlled for a number of factors, including county population and various demographic characteristics.
“I recommend we audit the machines,” he concluded.
The man is Ben Turner, who used to be the chief actuary at Texas Mutual Workers’ Compensation Insurance. He now runs Fraud Spotters, a consultancy specializing in detecting insurance fraud.
The article explains the method he used to investigate the impact of the Dominion machines:
He looked at how, county-by-county, election results changed between the 2008 and 2020 presidential races, measuring whether adoption of Dominion would have any overall effect on the changes. He picked the 2008 election because, at the time, only New York State had widely adopted Dominion, according to data from VerifiedVoting.Org. He excluded New York from the analysis, leaving him 657 counties that have adopted Dominion and 2,388 that have not as of 2020.
He found that Dominion use was associated with a 1.55 percentage point decrease in the Republican vote and a 1.55 percentage point increase in the Democratic vote in the presidential race.
He controlled for the differences in county population, the number of votes cast, urban/rural population split, population growth, international immigration rate, low-education population, high “natural amenity” areas, high “creative class” population, and manufacturing dependency.
Later, he added seven more control factors to the analysis, including race, voter preference, and population. Not only did the “Dominion effect” persist, but the probability of his results being a fluke decreased.
The effect somewhat decreased, to a 2.84-point shift, when he also controlled for age.
The probability that the results occurred by chance or due to some unobserved factor was about 1 in 1,000, the analysis showed.
In his estimation, the results were significant enough to potentially flip elections in at least four states. In Georgia, only about 0.24 percent of votes would need to be shifted from one candidate to the other for the state to flip. In Arizona, only one county—the populous Maricopa County—uses Dominion, but the margin there is so thin that shifting 0.51 percent of Maricopa’s votes could flip the state. In Wisconsin, 2.05 percent of votes in counties using Dominion would need to be shifted; in Nevada, 2.5 percent.
This is not an accident. Someone knew when they introduced these machines into the voting process what would happen. It is time for some really good research people to get to the root of where the idea to use these machines came from. Jail sentences should follow.