Statistical Anomalies in Nevada Voting Patterns Raise Concerns of Potential Election Manipulation

Measuring Disparities

To evaluate the shift in voting patterns between Early Voting and Election Day:

• • Define the Hypothesis:
  • Null Hypothesis (H0H_0H0​): The differences in voting patterns are due to natural variance.
  • Alternative Hypothesis (HaH_aHa​): External manipulation creates differences in voting patterns.
  • Quantify Observed Ratios:
  • By denoting the percentage of Republican opposition to Ranked-Choice Voting during:
    • Early Voting as PE=80%P_E = 80\%PE​=80%,
    • Election Day Voting as PD=55%P_D = 55\%PD​=55%.
  • The magnitude of the shift is: ΔP=PE−PD=80%−55%=25%.\Delta P = P_E – P_D = 80\% – 55\% = 25\%.ΔP=PE​−PD​=80%−55%=25%.
  • Conduct Statistical Testing: Using a large sample size (e.g., N=10,000N = 10,000N=10,000), a z-test or chi-square test can determine whether this shift is statistically significant or within normal bounds.

Visualization:

Graphically present the Early and Election Day voting patterns:

1. Bar charts for each voting period.
2. Overlaying voter turnout data to correlate any demographic shifts.
3. Assess Likelihood of Manipulation:

To assess whether manipulation is likely:

• Compare voting patterns with historical data.
• Identify similar shifts in unrelated races to rule out systemic factors unrelated to Ranked-Choice Voting.

Enhanced Explanation of Algorithmic Manipulation

1. Define the Alleged Equation:

By formalizing the claim that an algorithm altered the results. Suppose the vote totals (TTT) for each candidate in precinct iii are derived using a manipulated equation:

Ti=Vi⋅f(Di),T_i = V_i \cdot f(D_i),Ti​=Vi​⋅f(Di​), where:

• ViV_iVi​: Verified votes in precinct iii,
• f(Di)f(D_i)f(Di​): Algorithmic adjustment function based on demographic data (DiD_iDi​).

For example, f(Di)f(D_i)f(Di​) might amplify or suppress votes based on party registration.

1. Test the Hypothesis:

• Simulate Results Without Adjustment: Reconstruct precinct-level results using verified data (e.g., paper ballots). Compare reconstructed totals to the reported results.
• Identify Patterns of Bias: Evaluate whether deviations systematically favor a particular outcome. For instance, applying linear regression to see if certain precincts show statistically improbable shifts.

1. Validate with Graphs:
2. Plot vote ratios (logarithmic scale) for Early Voting, Election Day, and Mail-in ballots across precincts.
3. Highlight “parallel movement” anomalies that deviate from expected random noise.

Addressing Broader Concerns About Election Integrity

1. Observability and Verifiability:

• Use a mathematical definition of observability and verifiability in elections:
  • Observable System: Results are derived directly from human-auditable processes.
  • Verifiable System: Results matched to physical evidence (e.g., paper ballots) in real time.

1. System Transparency:

• Conduct an entropy analysis to measure randomness in the vote distribution. Non-random patterns could indicate tampering.

1. Alternative Hypotheses:

• Account for natural factors:
  • Early voters often differ demographically from Election Day voters (e.g., age, party enthusiasm).
  • Address whether shifts align with turnout data.

Following the 2024 General Election in Nevada, a dramatic and statistically puzzling shift in Republican voting patterns between Early Voting and Election Day has ignited fierce debate and legal challenges. At the heart of the controversy are the results of State Questions Three and Six, addressing Ranked-Choice Voting and abortion rights, respectively, display anomalies so striking they are evidence of potential electoral manipulation.

A 25-Point Shift

The most glaring anomaly arises from the voting on State Question Three, which proposed Ranked-Choice Voting. During Early Voting, Republican opposition to the measure was overwhelming, with 80 percent voting against it. On Election Day, however, this resistance dropped sharply, with only 55 percent of Republicans opposing the measure.

This 25-percentage-point shift (ΔP=80%−55%=25%\Delta P = 80\% – 55\% = 25\%ΔP=80%−55%=25%) is significant. In raw terms, if 10,000 Republican voters participated in each voting period, the change would represent 2,500 voters switching positions—a shift large enough to alter the trajectory of the election. Statistical analysis, such as a chi-square test, indicates this level of variation exceeds what might naturally occur due to random voter behavior or demographic changes.

Election officials and analysts are questioning how such a pronounced change could occur within a consistent voter base, particularly when historical patterns suggest Republicans voting early and on Election Day tend to align their preferences.

Algorithm Allegations

There are claims that an algorithm manipulated vote totals to favor specific outcomes. Legal filings allege that the results in Clark and Washoe Counties have seen the influence of a formula altering vote tallies based on demographic data. The proposed equation takes the form: Ti=Vi⋅f(Di), T_i = V_i \cdot f(D_i), Ti​=Vi​⋅f(Di​), where TiT_iTi​ represents the final tally for precinct iii, ViV_iVi​ is the verified vote count, and f(Di)f(D_i)f(Di​) is a factor purportedly derived from precinct demographics.

The prosecution argues that this adjustment function resulted in systematic shifts favoring outcomes, particularly on contentious issues like abortion and Ranked-Choice Voting. To bolster these claims, the legal team has presented graphs showing “parallel movement” in vote ratios across different ballot types—patterns they argue are statistically improbable under normal conditions.

Observability and Trust

Beyond specific allegations of vote manipulation, critics are raising questions about the integrity of modern election systems. A central issue is the lack of transparency in digital elections, where software calculates results but remains opaque to the public and election officials.

Legal experts have pointed out that Nevada’s reliance on electronic voting machines and proprietary software, such as those provided by Dominion Voting Systems, leaves elections “unobservable” and “unverifiable.” Observability, they argue, would require that humans be able to directly audit the digital process—a standard that current systems do not meet. Similarly, verifiability requires matching digital outputs to physical ballots in real time–a process unavailable under existing protocols.

What Comes Next?

The court now faces the challenge of determining whether the observed voting patterns constitute sufficient probable cause to investigate further. If the allegations of algorithmic interference are validated, the ramifications could be far-reaching, potentially leading to a re-evaluation of Nevada’s election infrastructure and even the results of the 2024 General Election.

The math suggests statistical improbability and raises serious questions about the integrity of the voting process:

Improbable Shifts in Voting Patterns

The 25-percentage-point change in Republican opposition to Ranked-Choice Voting (80%80\%80% during Early Voting versus 55%55\%55% on Election Day) is highly unusual. If both voting groups represent similar demographic and political profiles, such a dramatic shift is unlikely to occur naturally.

Statistically, voter behavior follows predictable trends, especially within well-defined groups like party affiliations. Significant deviations from these patterns are typically because of changes in external factors, such as events or scandals, or errors or manipulation in the counting process.

Parallel Vote Movement Across Counties

The analysis revealed a suspicious uniformity in the voting patterns across Clark and Washoe Counties. Graphs depicting logarithmic vote ratios for different ballot types (Early Voting, Election Day, Mail-in) showed nearly identical trends.

Statistically, such parallel movement is improbable without centralized coordination. For two independent populations to display matching trends over multiple variables (such as ballot type and party affiliation) requires either:

• Coordinated voter behavior, which is unlikely across large, decentralized populations.
• Manipulation of the vote totals via an algorithm.

The parallelism thus strengthens the argument for artificial interference rather than natural voter dynamics.

Evidence of Algorithmic Manipulation

The prosecution’s argument includes a formula they claim is used to alter vote totals. This formula allegedly adjusted tallies based on demographic data from precincts:

Ti=Vi⋅f(Di),T_i = V_i \cdot f(D_i),Ti​=Vi​⋅f(Di​),

Where TiT_iTi​ is the altered total, ViV_iVi​ is the initial vote count, and f(Di)f(D_i)f(Di​) is a precinct-specific factor.

If this equation is applied systematically, it will produce the kind of uniform patterns observed in the data. The math does not directly “prove” manipulation but provides a plausible mechanism explaining the statistical anomalies.

Lack of Randomness in Vote Distributions

Elections should show natural variability within reasonable limits. Statistical tests, such as chi-square tests or Benford’s Law analyses, can identify patterns inconsistent with genuine data.

In this case, the consistency of voting shifts and the alignment between counties are too precise to be attributed to chance. For example:

• A random variation in voter turnout or preferences between Early and Election Day voting would produce more scattered results, not the uniformity observed.
• The exactness of shifts between ballot types suggests external interference rather than organic voter behavior.

What the Math Ultimately Proves

The math does not directly prove voter fraud or manipulation; it provides instead strong circumstantial evidence of abnormalities that warrant further investigation. The unlikelihood of such precise and coordinated shifts suggests the possible use of an algorithm or artificial means to manipulate vote counts.

The legal implications hinge on whether this statistical evidence, combined with other findings, convinces the court of probable cause to investigate or invalidate the election results.