Religious & Philosophical

371 pages
8 views

Evidence of vote manipulation in the 2016 presidential election

of 371
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Description
This paper details irregularities in the distribution of Trump's 2016 vote in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In these four states, Trump's concentration of gains is unlike that of any candidate—Republican or Democratic—in any of
Transcript
  P LEASE CIRCULATE ;  CITE AS MANUSCRIPT DOWNLOADED ON ACADEMIA . EDU   Evidence of vote manipulation in the 2016 presidential election Chris Corcoran April 6, 2018 Abstract This paper details irregularities in the distribution of Trump’s 2016 vote in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In these four states, Trump’s concentration of gains is unlike that of any candidate—Republican or Democratic—in any of the nine previous presidential elections. In the rest of the country, his distribution closely matched Romney’s in 2012. In the chapters that follow, I show how these irregularities are evidence of vote manipulation—an average of 3% in these four states to acquire 64 electoral votes—just 0.45% of the vote nationwide. I review Trump’s Michigan results in detail (Chapter 2) and compare them to the rest of the country (Chapter 3) to develop a methodology for ruling out explainable graph irregularities (Chapters 3–4) and to identify specific anomalous counties for each of the four states (Chapters 5–8). Using previous research, I suggest potential cyber attacks that would account for these data and discuss how manipulation went undetected (Chapter 9). Chapters 1. Introduction: Evidence of vote manipulation in four battleground states 2. Michigander motivations for taking a closer look: No recount for Reagan-sized wins 3. No irregular distribution of votes in the rest of the country 4. Four states with an inexplicable distribution of votes 5. Michigan’s anomalous counties 6. Ohio’s anomalous counties 7. Pennsylvania’s anomalous counties 8. Wisconsin’s anomalous counties 9. How could this happen? 10. Conclusion: Without manipulation, Clinton wins References Appendix A: Alphabetical list of counties used for each state graph Appendix B: Wisconsin Recount County Canvass Board Minutes Edge DRE problems  Acknowledgments : Thank you to Dave Leip for creating and maintaining his  Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (uselectionatlas.org). His dedication and stewardship of election data is critical to our form of government. Without it, this work would not have been possible. Thank you to the Verified Voting Foundation (verifiedvoting.org) for vigilantly collecting and updating their comprehensive database on voting systems. Thank you to Lori King and her math class at Marian A. Peterson Middle School of Sunnyvale, California for inspiring the discussion of standard deviation. Thank you to John Smagner for checking out some graphs at a pivotal time. Thank you to Rick Schoen for sharing relevant articles whenever he found them and for always finding them. Thank you to Mary Margaret Bell for many helpful conversations and opportunities to formulate my arguments. Thank you to Sharon Jennings for conversations, planning sessions, and the review of many drafts. Finally, thank you to Edward Keegan for conversations, feedback, advice, and the extraordinary opportunity to see this through to fruition.   ii Note on Election Statistics and State-Level Polling Voting data are from Dave Leip’s  Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (uselectionatlas.org) . This includes Wisconsin’s recount results. The only major deviation is for Michigan. Since the recount was partial, Leip does not incorporate those results into his Michigan totals, but I have using results posted by the Michigan Secretary of State (2016b). Numbers given in tables that incorporate recount results are marked with an asterisk and accompanying source note. Any Michigan total that appears without an asterisk is from a county that was not recounted. All state polling data cited in the summaries on individual states come from Dave Leip’s site (uselectionatlas.org) as well. Exceptions appear with the appropriate citation. © 2018 by Chris Corcoran  
Related Documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks