05/04/2023
About the 2020 election, we would like to discuss the controversial outcome of Pennsylvania on that fateful night. Pennsylvania is arguably the most important state to examine when trying to understand the 2020 election and how its outcome was determined, as almost all agree is the most important of the vital swing states. With near certainty, it swings the way of the ultimate Electoral College winner. Unfortunately, recent election history in Pennsylvania could have been better, with the most recent election widely considered an abomination. We wanted to dive in and provide context on what went wrong and how the state was ultimately decided. We aren’t pointing fingers here today, though finger-pointing is undoubtedly merited, as we are sure you will agree upon reading our piece on the 2020 Election. Instead, we want to focus on where things went wrong and why things don’t add up.
Suppose you want to understand how “it” happened in 2020 and how Democracy was subverted. Then you came to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we specifically focus on Pennsylvania and bring some critical evidence to light regarding how the 2020 Election was hijacked in our belief. Evidence of wrongdoing is often plain to see; it just requires clear eyes. We suggest looking for logical and likely ways that things could go wrong, as often the simplest is the most likely. Ocom’s Razor is a good guide. Ignore the controlled opposition arguments like rigged ballot machines. It’s much more straightforward and right out in the open for anyone to see if they are willing to take the time to see it and brave enough to believe what they find. To find the answer to what took place in Pennsylvania and other key swing states, look into ballot rejection statistics. That’s where the “there” is. Historically, in areas where mail-in voting has been implemented before, the rejection rate, on average, hovers between 3-5%. That means that in places where people had experience with voting by mail, nearly 5% of ballots still managed to fail the requirements to be considered valid. With that in mind, consider this: mail-in voting was a brand new practice statewide in Pennsylvania with no prior experience for voters. With that fact in hand, it reasonably should be assumed that somewhere in the appropriate ballpark of 3-5% of mail
in ballots (the long-term historical rejection average for people *with experience voting by mail*) would be submitted and fail to meet all the requirements (requirements that voters have no experience with), making them invalid and therefore subject to rejection.
Nothing stated here is extreme or unreasonable. For the sake of our argument, It’s worth reminding you: the historical average of rejected ballots *in places where people are at least in part familiar with mail-in requirements* is roughly between 3 to 5%.
So what about Pennsylvania and its first statewide experiment with Mail-In Voting, a process in which no voter in the state had any prior experience with or familiarity with the rules governing ballot submissions? It went very well! Pennsylvania and the 2,629,672 first-time mail-in voters performed admirably, boasting a very believable and reasonable acceptance rate of 98.71% or, put another way, a ballot rejection rate of 1.29%.
So the next time this comes up with someone in your life, and you are dismissed, harassed, or treated like a crazy person who believes in conspiracy theories, remember this post. In summary, mail-in voting, for voters familiar with the process, has a historical rejection rate average of about ~3.5%. In the 2020 election in Pennsylvania (where statewide mail-in voting was instituted for the first time, with millions voting by that method with zero prior experience or familiarity with the requirements), a mere 1.29% of mail-in ballots were deemed invalid and rejected.
Please take a look at the following for more detail on mail-in ballot rejection rates historically concerning Pennsylvania. While in 2018, mail-in ballots were not yet legal. However, an exception was in place for absentee ballots eligible for mail-in balloting. This situation provides an intriguing baseline, providing some concrete data on ballot rejection rates in Pennsylvania. Due to the timing of the data, it’s about as close to an analog as you can get.
The data stems, conveniently, from the 2018 election, just two years before the election in question, the 2020 Presidential election. Absentee ballots have been eligible for mail-in for some time, so it stands to reason that the absentee voters in 2018 had some practice with voting by mail and the ballot requirements. So it’s reasonable to think the rejection rate for these ballots would be a good indicator of what would happen when mail-in became eligible statewide. If anything, due to their familiarity with the mail-in process, their rejection rate would likely be lower than that of a statewide electorate with no familiarity with the process.
So, how did our mail-in voters fair in 2018? In short? It could have gone better. A lot better. The rejection rate statewide on those mailed-in absentee ballots was an astounding 4.4% - and about right in line with the historical average for ballot rejection rates in mail-in elections, as previously mentioned. For a more granular look, in Philadelphia, 4.3% of mail-in ballots were rejected (which is of note, considering a massive share of Biden/Harris votes came from mail-in ballots out of the Philly area. Looking elsewhere, in Chester, 7.6% of mailed-in ballots were rejected. That’s a nearly 700% increase in rejected ballots over the numbers reported in 2020.
Given the relatively massive rejection rate margins (several 100%) between 2018 and 2020 (in Pennsylvania!) - and also considering the established 3-5% average mail-in rejection rate historically from around the country, we find it entirely believable, if not outright plausible, that when the state instituted statewide mail-in voting for all voters (none with any experience filling out a mail-in ballot), the rejection rate of mailed-in votes collapsed nearly 500%, from 5%+ to just barely above 1%. That adds up and certainly doesn’t merit further questions or skepticism.
For important context, Biden won the State of Pennsylvania by a mere 1.17%. We leave it to you to conclude about the 2020 election, its management, conduct, outcome, and, dare we say… legitimacy.
Here’s hoping this flies below Facebook’s radar, and we’re still here tomorrow. But the facts had to be shared. And one last piece - this wasn’t unique to Pennsylvania. There were a lot of different theories about how 2020 might have been a tarnished election, but this is the most reasonable and merited argument we’ve seen. We have questions about specific forms of ballot harvesting and the use of “mules” in major swing state cities such as Philly and Atlanta, with some compelling evidence put out there. However, we believe the rejection rate explanation, by itself, is backed by facts that anyone can source, can pass the sniff test, is plausible, and can explain how multiple states critical to the national outcome went the way they did, doing so without requiring hard to believe arguments of hacked voting machines, centrally orchestrated schemes, servers in Venezuela, etc. Our view regarding ballot rejections casts the 2020 outcome in serious question, and we have yet to see a counterargument that holds muster.
This is not to say that bad-faith actions were taken. There are serious questions that remain unanswered regarding election judge access to vote to count, shut down polling centers at critical points along the evening’s timeline, unattended ballots being found by third parties, nonprofits funding ballot drop boxes in regions with highly favorable demographics to Democrats despite 501c3’s being required to non-partisanship, major corporations funding additional ballot drive initiatives, large trucks arriving to polling locations well into the count, outright physical removal of Republican overseers, tens of thousands of ballots found with only a vote recorded for Biden/Harris and no down ballot votes, statistical impossibilities such as ballot dumps at 3:30 AM with 99,999 votes for Biden and one sole vote for Trump, nearly impossible turn out levels in critical areas relative to baselines set elsewhere, depressed turnouts in major cities - except the capitals of swing states, and much more.
And, of course, none of this addresses the most apparent corrupt and duplicitous aspect of the 2020 election. The outright censorship of conservative voices on social media, de-platforming, throttling the reach of conservative outlets, government lead manipulation of social media platforms, the outrageous censorship of the NY Post, and the multifaceted effort by the Government, Members of the intelligence community. Media outlets and Social media to suppress the Hunter Biden revelations (which alone would have likely altered the outcome). Furthermore, 24/7 partisan propaganda from sources considered credible news outlets, push polling intended to drive down turnout and targeted social media campaigns to turn out key demographics that overwhelmingly support Democrats.
And, of course, the Democrat 2020 political master stroke: the weaponization of the ballot box under the guise of a health crisis. The most strategically successful political maneuver of the last half century: the wholesale, dramatic expansion of the voter base, a complete breakdown of all safeguards to the ballot box, the introduction of mail-in voting, and the mass unsolicited efforts that went into sending ballots out to virtually everyone. In addition, under the guise of a health crisis and due to democratic pressure, for-profit companies and nonprofits were also enabled to spend 100s of millions building out vast networks of drop-off ballot boxes strategically laid out and deployed to maximize voter access to key demographics. Atlanta alone saw enormous sums spent on drop boxes in nearly universal African American communities, playing arguably the key role in flipping Georgia. Meanwhile, you would need help finding a single dollar spent on a ballot drop box in any rural region of the country.
�Nothing stated here is untrue, hyperbolic, or otherwise disqualifying. It is just a simple outline of the facts, historical data, and a reasonable interpretation of disparities between elections and the circumstances around them.
Sorry Facebook, it had to be done.
