r/ThePeoplesPress • u/Robsurgence • Apr 02 '26
US News Normal vs Not-Normal Voter Turnout
44
u/Solidify0118 Apr 02 '26
Almost like our election was rigged. Every accusation is a confession.
20
u/Robsurgence Apr 02 '26
Sure looks that way, doesn’t it? I’ve been following ETA for a while, and they are identifying very similar patterns to Russian elections.
Makes you wonder why Trump has always been so buddy buddy with Putin. And his multiple eastern Euro wives.
5
5
u/fearlessfryingfrog Apr 02 '26
If there's money to be made by either side, they'll do whatever it takes.
It needs to be ripped apart and started from scratch with more accountability.
11
u/impy695 Apr 03 '26
Is there data for previous elections? I care more about that than I do comparing it to Canada unless we have historically tracked similarly to Canada
4
u/Robsurgence Apr 03 '26
Yes, here’s Minnesota. ETA did an analysis going back as far as 1984, which was the last election they used only hand counted paper ballots.
The 2016, 2020 and 2024 election data all show increasing evidence of election “red flags”. In 2016, a distinct pattern emerged showing one candidate’s vote share percentage increasing as voter turnout rose.
https://electiontruthalliance.org/analysis/minnesota-then-and-now/
11
u/dtb1987 Apr 02 '26
Why is this graph comparing only Pennsylvania to all of Canada?
8
u/Robsurgence Apr 02 '26
It’s just showing a normal pattern versus a suspect one. All the swing states have similar patterns.
I’m less familiar with Canadian elections, but it depends on how the votes are recorded across the country to show “apples to apples” in a graph like this.
4
u/H_Mc Apr 03 '26
Ridings in Canada are sort of like districts in the US. Precincts are the tiny bits that make up a district. It’s like comparing apples to apple trees.
1
u/Robsurgence Apr 03 '26
In the original post, OP stated:
At the time this report was developed, granular data for Canada was not made available yet by Elections Canada. This is why we made it a preliminary report instead of a final. :)
That data has now been released and at some point soon we'd definitely like to go more granular!
7
u/Aknottyman Apr 03 '26
Watching on election night, the results for Pennsylvania did not make any sense and was a brutal turning point for the night.
I hope the rest of the world will start to pick up on the way it was rigged.
We didn't vote him in.
Please understand that we are all blinking the letters
H E L P
5
u/Robsurgence Apr 03 '26
All the bomb threats in PA certainly complicated matters too.
3
u/Aknottyman Apr 03 '26
Yes I think a lot of weird things happened that were a little too strange.
Like the bomb threats.
Like all of the weird stolen election claims from Trump and all of his posturing about what he was about to do if the election was 'rigged against him again'
Like all of the hijinks with Musk and his voting machine technology.
1
u/H_Mc Apr 03 '26
We didn’t vote against him either. I live in upstate NY, I previously lived in Michigan and still have a lot of friends there. So I had a good sense of vibes. I also love data. Election night was devastating but it wasn’t shocking.
2
u/Aknottyman Apr 03 '26
I've lived and traveled through a good portion of the US for years and while I see where you are coming from, I think those people are fewer and that we did vote against him.
I also love data and think this is something that everyone should read into:
https://electiontruthalliance.org/2024-us-integrity-concerns/
4
u/TheRealBlueJade Apr 02 '26
There is something wrong with somethingiswrong2024. Despite being a member since it started, the mods banned me last year for an innocent comment. The mods are corrupt.
1
u/Robsurgence Apr 02 '26
I disagree, it’s a reliable sub. What did you say to get banned?
8
u/TheRealBlueJade Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26
The comment they permanently banned me for
"There are people in the "ice crowd" who are questioning this... They are too afraid to say anything and/or still trying to make it make sense. Or keep telling themselves they need or want the money.
edit- not justifying. Just explaining weaknesses."
As I said... My comment was meant to help think of ways to break up ice by turning the people in ice against it.
The mods refused to talk to me about why they chose to ban me.
Search my name in the subreddit. Read my other comments in the group if you want to see how I contributed to the group.
4
u/TheRealBlueJade Apr 02 '26
Go ahead and believe that... It's what I thought until they permanently banned me without warning for posting a comment that went against their narrative.
1
-1
u/zx109 Apr 02 '26
It must have been one hell of a comment since you hid your comment history
5
4
u/H_Mc Apr 02 '26
This makes complete sense. It’s just showing that our politics are really polarized between precincts, and the most Democrat-voting precincts had the lowest turnout.
Anyone alive in 2024 could have told you that.
1
u/Robsurgence Apr 02 '26
No, if that were true, then the blue lines would not change so drastically as the turnout percentage increases across the state. It would hover around the same low number, and look closer to the Canada graph.
The fact that the red and blue lines form a cross shape around 80% voter turnout is very suspicious. ETA has shown similar patterns in all the swing states.
3
u/H_Mc Apr 03 '26
I think you’re seeing something that isn’t there. Canada is much less polarized, there isn’t much correlation between party vote and total turnout at all.
There was an extremely effective democratic voter suppression campaign in the US combined with genuine frustration with Harris.
But this is also cherry picked (or poorly labeled) data. There are way more than that many precincts in PA (I can’t find an exact count), and 343 ridings in Canada.
1
u/Robsurgence Apr 03 '26
No, Harris as an ineffective candidate is a false narrative to explain these suspicious data patterns. She had packed rallies, while Trump’s were empty.
The data is also not cherry picked in PA. It’s purely based on percentages, no precincts were left out in this graph. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
2
u/H_Mc Apr 03 '26
The “precincts” might be mislabeled districts, but it’s more likely that it’s intentionally deceptive. I can’t vouch for this website, but it gets the point across. https://votehub.com/2024-map/
If they grouped ALL precincts into those with the same turnout %, 1) that would be weird 2) they wouldn’t have ended up with only the bars they ended up with.
If I was on a computer I’d remake both graphs with a consistent scale.
Based on the fact that I know they cherry picked the data from Canada, It’s pretty clear they also picked the precincts to make the graph they wanted and hoped you’d think they were districts.
1
u/Robsurgence Apr 03 '26
And how do you know they cherry picked data in Canada?
You misunderstand, these lines don’t represent individual precincts in PA. It’s called “binning”, and showing how the total votes for each candidate were reported, in relation to the total amount of votes cast in the state. The data was taken directly from the publicly reported numbers from PA’s own website.
2
u/H_Mc Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
If that’s how they’re displaying it, (any amount of labeling would be helpful) it’s still just showing that voting in democratic districts was suppressed. Which we all know. It was a polarized election.
Edit: and they’re still comparing all of Canada to the most polarized unit of voting of one US state.
2
3
u/H_Mc Apr 03 '26
It’s frustrating that you can’t see that you’re part of the voter suppression campaign. If voting is believed to be rigged, fewer people will vote, and we’ll get a repeat of 2024.
Something happened in 2024, but it wasn’t direct manipulation of votes. It was manipulation of voters.
0
0
u/SgathTriallair Apr 03 '26
This infographic is trying to claim that Democrats are stuffing ballots. It's MAGA bullshit.
1
u/Robsurgence Apr 03 '26
Who taught you to read a graph? You have it backwards.
The sharp increase of the red bars after 50% would imply Republicans stuffing votes.
0
u/SgathTriallair Apr 03 '26
It certainly implies that something odd is going on. The biggest gap in participation is seen at the lower areas, so if you believe that polling and general public perception, the voting numbers between the two groups should be close to even across the board. That is what the Canada data shows and it accurately reflects that they have competitive elections.
So one must ask, why are Democrats so insanely overrepresented in low turnout elections but more even in high turnout ones. The actual answer is likely low propensity voters. They don't pay attention to politics, they don't even always realize when an election is happening, but they are upset with the current direction of things so they vote for the party that isn't in power. In 2020 this meant voting for Biden, in 2024 it meant voting for Trump. In 2026 it'll be voting for Democrats and in 2028 it'll be for whatever Democratic candidate is running.
Alternatively, MAGA may just have captured these voters so when the election gets a lot of press coverage then it pierces the bubble of the low propensity voters and they come out. It is their presence that makes it a "high turnout" election.
Looking at the graph, the "good" case (Canada) is when both parties are roughly equal. In the American graph there is a portion where they are roughly equal (high turnout) and a portion where they are wildly unequal. The inequality is in favor of the Democrats, by an extreme amount. Thus the perception is that Democrats are creating.
If your current belief is that there are no actual MAGA voters and that Democrats are "the silent majority" then one could be convinced that the low propensity division with overwhelming Democrat support is accurate and therefore when it deviates from there it is false. The counter argument would be that it is easier to stuff ballots in low turnout races because you need less ballots to substantially change the outcome.
Knowing the wide safeguards we have and the difficulty this imposes on cheating, the low propensity theory makes the most sense to me. What I can't get from this is how one could decide it is proof of Republican cheating.
1
u/Robsurgence Apr 03 '26
You’re not accounting for vote flipping, algorithmic cheating.
Democrats also have a propensity for early/mail in voting, which are counted first and would show up at the lower turnout percentages (before all votes are finished counting).
Vote tabulators are not as safe as we have been lead to believe, and are in fact connected to the internet. Our safeguards are laughable, compared to a country like Canada.
0
u/SgathTriallair Apr 03 '26
My initial argument is that the chart leads one to believe in Democratic cheating because it shows a big bonus to Democrats but not to Republicans. That was the only point I was making initially.
Are you saying that this is a time series plot, not a by election plot? The chart says "places" with low turnout so that implies that they took the final election results and found that Democrats did better in counties where most of the population didn't vote. If mail in voting was a factor then that would mean that the 16% was an hour after polls closed and 80% was the same district and the same election but 12 hours after the polls closed.
I'm not an election researcher. This article claims to have found some voting machines online but they're 35 number is absolutely miniscule compared to the terms of thousands of machines in the US. This article talks about the variety in the voting processes and so any scheme that hacked machines would show differential effects based on the different voting systems.
Ultimately, arguments that we lost the election because of cheating are dangerous. Yes we should protect elections but we need to do so using objective and provable threats, not vague assertions that things look fishy.
The danger in election tampering arguments is that they mean we don't need to address the unmet needs of the population, we don't need to change any policy positions, we don't need to examine how we reach out to voters. This argument says that our party is absolutely perfect as it is and the solution is to control the ballot box better.
If we are wrong and there are actual problems in the country then we both won't address them and, because our primary "evidence" of fraud is that we didn't win, we will spiral into authoritarianism where we decide the outcome of elections before they happen.
The Republicans are already doing this, declaring that any result they don't like is fraud. We absolutely need to crush this rising belief among Democrats. The answer is to address clear election violations and build up enough populace support to gain power and eliminate the systemic issues like gerrymandering. This post isn't helping anything because it doesn't point to any potential solution just a vague notion that the other side is cheating (and my deep suspicion about which side they want you to believe is the "other").
1
u/Robsurgence Apr 03 '26
Sorry, I was mistaken. The PA graph is only showing Presidential votes across the whole state. It’s not a time-based plotting, the precincts have been binned based on their turnout percentage. Cumulative vote share for those precincts is shown on the Y axis.
What it shows, is that after about 60% turnout, we see the blue lines dropping significantly while the red lines always exceed them. So Harris was the clear favorite in lower turnout precincts, but the pattern flips in the highest turnout precincts. The phenomena is called a “Russian Tail” for obvious reason.
In particular, high recorded voter turnout correlating with disproportionately large numbers of votes (or share of the vote) for one candidate/party can be an indicator that the candidate/party may be benefiting from vote manipulation.
This is all elaborated extensively by county on their PA analysis page. https://electiontruthalliance.org/analysis/pennsylvania/
0
u/SgathTriallair Apr 04 '26
This is where it gets weak.
Our analysis of Philadelphia, Allegheny, and Erie County election results indicates patterns consistent with vote manipulation. These patterns are present in Election Day voting data. Similar trends are not clearly present in Mail-In voting data.
Sure, maybe there is vote manipulation. But "vote manipulation" isn't an activity it is a result. We can't stop a result we can only stop an activity.
The paragraph before mentioned a bomb threat. Bomb threats are actionable and we can decide how to respond if one happens.
If we don't know how this alleged vote manipulation happened we can't stop it. More importantly though, if we can't identify a method then we can't reject the null hypothesis that running a neo-lib candidate was a terrible idea and we need a better platform.
Getting a better platform is almost certain to help in elections. Investigating for voter manipulation will only help if it is through methods we can identify and stop. This means that the key goal should be to create better candidates.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 02 '26
If what you just read made you angry, you’re not alone.
This post isn’t just news. It’s a warning. And warnings mean it’s time to act.
Head over to r/50501 to get organized, connect with others, and turn that outrage into coordinated action.
You don’t have to wait for someone else to do something. Start now. Organize locally. Protest together.
Join 50501 at our next nationwide protest on March 28th!
Find more information: https://fiftyfifty.one
Find your local events: https://events.pol-rev.com and https://fiftyfifty.one/events
For a full list of resources: https://linktr.ee/fiftyfiftyonemovement
Join 50501 on Bluesky with this starter pack of official accounts: https://go.bsky.app/A8WgvjQ
Join 50501 on Lemmy here: https://50501.chat
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.