“Analysis evidence suggests the use of the Dominion X/ICX BMD (Ballot Marking Device) machine, manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems, and machines from HART InterCivic appear to have abnormally influenced election results,” the data analyst wrote in a report that was published on Thursday.
The data analyst, who wished to remain anonymous for safety reasons, has 30 years of practice in data analysis.
In his analysis, he worked with voting data and 2017 census data to set up a baseline scenario to foretell the election result. Then, he used the baseline model to compare the outcomes of the November election.
The results dispense Biden falling above the prediction line in 78 percent of counties that use voting machines from these two companies.
His analysis further indicates that Biden consistently gained 5.6 percent more votes in those counties than he should have.
“That should not happen … The counties using Dominion machines are clearly too high,” he said in a video introducing his research results. “That is a dramatic red flag in my opinion … something’s going on here.”
He explained that the “plus 5.6 percent” pattern is not an effect of the above-mentioned voting machines being broadly used in strong Democratic counties, as it can likewise be found in counties that have strong backing for President Donald Trump.
The study has not been peer-reviewed.
In the background, in their Dun & Bradstreet filings, Dominion maintained annual sales of $36.5 million with contracts in 22 states and 600 local jurisdictions. Still, the Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative estimated that Dominion was in 1,645 jurisdictions with $100 million in annual revenues (2018).
Hart InterCivic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Dominion Voting System declined to comment on the results of the analysis. The company announced that “courts of law across America have confirmed multiple times that there is no credible evidence to suggest any vote switching or fraud using Dominion Voting Systems.”
The analysis stated he didn’t draw any conclusion on who caused the possible irregularities.
However, he thinks that there must be a big scheme if the potential irregularities in his analysis have been caused by intentional activities.
“The patterns I’m seeing are across many counties—so my findings concern an organization with large-scale, national impact. That is, what I am seeing is not a local optical scan operator running a box of ballots through the system three times.”
He didn’t name any company or related party for wrongdoing.