This article started as a fact-check. I was ready to write it off. But the data actually came from a guy whose work has exposed rigged elections in Ukraine, Iran, and Russia. And what he found in Pennsylvania wasn’t just more noise. It was a red flag that nobody wants to look at. Even worse? It’s not just PA. The Election Truth Alliance lays it all out for us on their website.
This kind of forensic analysis was never meant for the U.S. We built it to call out Belarus, Venezuela. The ones the U.S. loves to portray as the “bad guys.” Now it’s aimed at us, and suddenly everyone’s looking away.
First thing to know: forensic models don’t accuse. They observe.
They don’t care who you voted for. They don’t care about Trump or Kamala or whatever the deep state is supposed to be doing in your uncle’s group chats. These models don’t have opinions. They have thresholds. They look at raw vote data and ask one simple question: does this behave like a real election should? If the answer is yes, the model stays quiet. If the answer is no, it raises its hand. That’s it.
The precinct-level vote data used to perform this analysis matches the official results posted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It wasn’t forensically cloned out of a voting machine in 2021 (I’m looking at you, MAGA) or cooked up on Reddit. It’s legit.
No conspiracy. No motive. Just numbers doing what numbers do.. telling the truth, even when no one asked them to.
A Broken System
Election forensics (e-forensics) flags things real elections aren’t supposed to have: perfect vote totals, identical numbers across precincts, turnout rates that break reality. Did 100% of registered voters show up? Did they all vote for the same person? Did counties report the exact same vote ratios down to the decimal?
That’s the kind of weird the model catches. It doesn’t know why it’s weird. It just knows elections are messy. And this one looks anything but.
So, let’s talk numbers they hope you’ll ignore. According to this forensic analysis, between 210,000 and 225,000 possibly fraudulent votes were flagged in Pennsylvania’s 2024 presidential election. Nearly all of them favored Trump.
That’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s a statistical red siren.
That number, 210,000, makes up somewhere between 3% and 3.2% of the entire statewide vote. Nearly double the margin between Trump and Harris. And remember: Trump’s 2024 total in PA somehow jumped 165,045 votes compared to 2020.
Now let’s break that down:
Of those possibly fraudulent votes, around 88,600 were labeled as likely “manufactured” votes, meaning they appeared out of thin air in places where turnout or vote counts didn’t make sense.
Another 121,000 were labeled “stolen,” where votes statistically should’ve gone to one candidate but suspiciously shifted to the other.
Out of 9,157 total precincts, at least 1,804 of them showed signs of possibly fraudulent activity,
‘Extreme fraud’ was detected in eight counties, including Huntingdon and Philadelphia.
Oh, and it gets uglier.
The state’s own voter registration data is so broken it might as well have been designed that way. Dozens of precincts were listed with zero registered voters and still somehow recorded hundreds or even thousands of votes. Others registered as “extreme fraud” to the tool because while they had some registered voters, they had way more votes than voters.
Read that again.
Allegheny Precinct 11760? Listed with zero registered voters. But it cast 485 votes.
Philadelphia’s 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Congressional precincts? 0 registered voters, yet 678, 1,789, and 16 votes were somehow counted.
Montgomery 1700? 1,029 votes, but no voters on record.
That’s doesn’t feel like a spreadsheet error. It feels goddamn invitation at this point.
Tell me, how does a precinct report zero registered voters, cast hundreds of ballots, and nobody even blinks? One precinct with more votes than voters should trigger alarms. Audits? Hand counts. Investigations. Something. But here? It triggered silence. The election was certified like nothing ever happened.
Now, to be clear, the precinct-level data showing zero registered voters? It came straight from the Commonwealth. The analyst confirmed it matched the official results. So either Pennsylvania is uploading garbage numbers to its own public portal, or someone upstream decided that zeroes were more convenient than the truth. Maybe it’s a reporting glitch. Maybe it's clerical laziness. Or maybe it’s the kind of “mistake” that survives because no one’s supposed to notice. But when multiple precincts across multiple counties show more ballots than voters.. and some list zero voters entirely, you have to ask: is this incompetence, or camouflage?
So About That Audit…
Pennsylvania will tell you they audited the 2024 election. They'll say they did a 2% manual check and a risk-limiting audit. Sounds good, right? Sounds official. Scientific. Comforting.
Hint: It’s not. Here’s the fine print they hope you don’t read: the audit doesn’t actually look for fraud.
It doesn’t ask if the numbers make sense. It doesn’t ask why a precinct with zero registered voters somehow cast 1,000 ballots. It doesn’t catch copy-paste totals or impossible turnout rates. They do a brief 2% county-level check to make sure at least 2% of randomly selected paper ballots match the machine and a risk-limiting audit (RLA), but the RLA usually starts after certification. It’s not there to question the big picture.. just to nod politely and keep the line moving.
And here’s what they won’t tell you unless you dig: those post-election audits in Pennsylvania? PA admitted they’re basically theater. One was a 2% statistical audit so shallow the PA State Department itself admitted it’s not statistically foolproof. Their words, not mine. The other? A “risk-limiting audit” that sounds scientific until you realize it didn’t even audit the presidential race. It checked the State Treasurer contest, and only in 55 precincts picked by dice roll.
That’s not an audit. That’s a gimmick.
So let’s recap that math: we’ve got precincts where the vote count outpaces the number of registered voters, some reporting zero registered voters at all, and audits that never even looked at the race in question. What exactly are we “verifying” here? They
And it’s not just Pennsylvania. Swing states like Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and Wisconsin do the same thing: they certify results before the audits even begin.
Yes, you read that correctly.
The results are made official before anyone bothers to check for errors, anomalies, or flat-out fraud. Georgia skips full audits unless cornered by scandal. Arizona just tests the machines, not the votes. Nevada openly admits its audits aren’t meant to delay certification, and Wisconsin’s come so late they may as well be commemorative.
These audits aren’t forensic tools, they don’t actually prevent fraud, they’re PR Band-Aids. They won’t catch ghost voters, they won’t flag impossible turnout, and they sure as hell won’t rewind the clock once results are locked in. So if they miss the big stuff, like 821 ballots cast in a precinct with zero registered voters, and certify before ever even looking at their audits, what the hell are we auditing for?
Proprietary Democracy
Even if you wanted to check the math yourself, good luck getting the raw numbers. Cast vote records (CVRs), the anonymized data spreadsheets showing how each ballot was interpreted, aren’t publicly posted everywhere. In fact, Pennsylvania courts ruled CVRs are off‑limits, treating them like “ballot box contents,” so they’re exempt from public records requests
Your best bet is using the numbers they’ve released to the public, but you’ll never be able to confirm it. Just trust me, bro.
Some jurisdictions play nice. Counties in Colorado and Wisconsin publish full CVRs to support transparency, but that’s a rare commodity we need to see more of in the United States.
Meanwhile, lots of swing states? They hide the ball. They’ll release PDF totals, maybe precinct breakdowns, but not enough to verify a suspicious spike or cross‑tab anomaly. Our elections are not transparent at all. We just take “experts” telling us there is not evidence of fraud and move on. Well… we’re just supposed to take their word for it?
If they weren’t up to something sketch, this data should be public, right? Nothing to hide. Government data. Clearly CO and WI have managed to do without any privacy issues. But no, that doesn’t happen. There’s an ongoing lawsuit in AZ for the same thing.
They say it’s about privacy, but what’s the real roadblock? Capitalism.
In most of America, your right to verify an election ends where a vendor’s contract begins. Companies like ES&S and Dominion routinely slap “proprietary” stickers on cast vote records, locking them away like trade secrets instead of public data.
For example, In California? Dominion sued to block release of contract-related records, including CVRs. Meanwhile, in Georgia, ES&S responded to A Request for Information in August 2018 by labeling its entire Electionware EMS as “confidential and proprietary.”
So basically, your right to a fair and transparent election ends where the corporate contracts begin. But no, no we’re not in an oligarchy.
So let’s recap.
A forensic tool built to expose dictatorships flagged our own election. Not some fringe hack in a Reddit basement, but the same guy whose work helped call out fraud in Iran, Russia, and Ukraine. He turned the lens inward. Pointed it at Pennsylvania. And what stared back wasn’t democracy, it was something wearing its skin.
The data didn’t come from a hacked server or a burner phone in a truck stop parking lot. It came straight from the Commonwealth’s own numbers. Official results. Well, at least the numbers they tell us. We can’t access the raw data.
But instead of confronting the red flags, we locked the doors. We certified results before audits. Hid cast vote records behind NDAs and “proprietary” labels. And when the numbers didn’t add up? We pretended they did.
This isn’t even necessarily just evidence of possible voter fraud. It’s system fraud. Process fraud. Transparency fraud.
We used to run these models on Venezuela and call it corruption. Now we run them on Pennsylvania, and call it politics.
So if you’re still telling yourself everything’s fine, ask why so many of the numbers don’t make sense. Ask why you can’t see the data. Ask why the truth needs a court order and a nondisclosure clause.
Because if the only thing standing between you and the evidence is a contract with a voting machine company… you’re not living in a democracy. You’re just renting one.
And the lease is almost up.
NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR:
I don’t put my work behind a paywall. These stories are too urgent, too raw, too real to keep locked away.
But independent journalism takes time, risk, and resources. If you value reporting that doesn't flinch, that names names and shows receipts, please consider subscribing. To stay in the loop, you can subscribe for free. It helps build awareness and keeps the pressure on.
A paid subscription helps me keep digging, filing FOIAs, verifying sources, and staying on the story long after the headlines fade. I’m not part of the mainstream press. I won’t sanitize what’s happening. I’ll just tell it like it is.
Thank you for being here.
— Dissent ♥
There’s been background noise for a while now about this PA voter fraud. Why are Democrat electeds and party leaders choosing to ignore this information?
This information seems akin to the Smart Legislation lawsuit in Rockland County, New York where the plaintiff asserts vote manipulation in favor of Trump.