According to the forensic audit of Antrim County, Michigan, there appears to be an error rate of 68.05% in the voting tabulation for the county. From section 6 and 7 the report:

The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (0.0008%). We observed an error rate of 68.05%. This demonstrates a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity.

The results of the Antrim County 2020 election are not certifiable. This is a result of machine error and/or software error, not human error.

The text is rather dense, and the numbers provided to seem to add up, but I'm not sure how they are so certain that this is machine error, or how they can certifiably conclude that this is indicative of a fatal election integrity error.

But sticking to a single answerable question, are these numbers accurate, and is it an accurate conclusion to say that the 68.05% error rate indicates a high level of machine error?

  • 4
    Who was this forensic audit done by and why is it posted on scribd? Seems very strange that this is just being given to the public rather than an agency for official investigation. Also if Democrats are stealing the election why did they lose seats in the house and not gain control of the senate? As it stands it is going to be very hard for Biden to get anything done with the senate as it stands.
    – Joe W
    Dec 15 '20 at 14:56
  • 1
    @JoeW - It was a "forensics audit" by the litigants in an attempt to overturn results, as part of their discovery. So, not any kind of objective third party, but someone who was being paid to start at a result, and then work backwards from there. This is not to say that Detroit area precincts don't have issues. They have been underfunded and have been working with old, crappy systems and machines for decades. They've also been asking for funds to upgrade, largely denied as not worth it by the same people complaining about it now. Dec 15 '20 at 17:21
  • @PoloHoleSet How do we know what they show has any validity? Data can be manipulated to make it say what you want to and just dumping it to the general public doesn't give much confidence that the data isn't manipulated to make their side look good.
    – Joe W
    Dec 15 '20 at 18:11
  • @JoeW - if the government hires an independent auditor to look at issues, there is no vested financial interest on the part of the auditor, and you'd probably have someone who is actually qualified. Banks, government agencies, insurance companies, publicly traded companies, etc. all have legal requirements to have independent audits done. Setting one up and having it done isn't hard to do. If you look at the opening statement of that document, you'd see that the person doing the "audit" has zero qualifications in that field, as well. I'm sure he's smart, but he's not qualified to do an audit. Dec 17 '20 at 19:24
  • @PoloHoleSet Was this audit hired by the government as part of an official investigation? Everything I have seen is these audits are being performed by third parties and not at the request of official sources.
    – Joe W
    Dec 17 '20 at 19:26

First point, the 68.05% number is sloppy, if not completely specious. The author notes that there were "15,676 individual events" recorded in the tabulation log, but doesn't specify what an event is in this context. I assume that an 'event' is any pertinent action performed by a user or the machine and recorded in the log, but regardless an 'event' is clearly not the same a 'ballot'. Comparing an error rate derived from an ongoing stream of 'events' to the Federal 1:250,000 guideline meant for final ballot tallies is fairly close to nonsense. For an apt analogy, this is a bit like having a rule that says we must drive straight home after work, and then having someone claim we broke the rule because we made all sorts of left and right turns as we were driving home. Knowingly or unknowingly, it's bait and switch: invoking one thing and producing something else entirely.

To the main point, please be careful with the word 'certain' here. There are people who are 'certain' of all sorts of crazed things: that the Earth is flat, that space-aliens are being held in Area 51, that Tupac and Kurt Cobain are still alive and sharing an apartment in Queens. This report is trying to argue that these 'event' discrepancies are a sign of intentional malfeasance through a convoluted process: that the machines were intentionally designed to produce a high rate of 'event' errors so that ballots could be reassigned to the 'adjudicated' category where they could be manipulated without a paper trail. What the numbers actually tell us is that something went slightly sideways in the early ballot counting. Between Nov 3 (election night) and Nov 5 5200 ballots for Trump were counted (probably a normal part of the time-consuming ballot counting process), and about 200 ballots that had been given to Biden were corrected and given to Trump. Then at some later date — probably after an audit — roughly 2000 ballots (most of them for Biden) were removed for one reason or another. The report asserts (probably justifiably) that the Michigan system was cloddish: they didn't do proper software update or security fixes, etc. But it takes that observation and leaps first to the contra-evidential conclusion that exploits did occur, and second to the wild-eyed conclusion that these vulnerabilities were expressly intended to allow exploits.

Without knowing what these 'events' refer to, all we can say for sure is that this county had an unfortunate number of corrections to tallies: something in the range of 15% (2.2k corrections out of 15.9k valid ballots). For all we know that might mean machine error, malicious attack, or some ballot-counter stuffing a stack of ballots into the scanner backwards. Nothing in this indicates that the final totals violated the Federal 1:250,000 guideline, and in fact such a large number of 'events' could easily be interpreted as a normal part of trying to meet that guideline in the final totals.

Possibility is not actuality, speculation is not fact, and while the absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, this ongoing game of "Don't Show and Tell" has worn out its welcome.

  • Other than the haranguing of the intent of the forensic investigation, I generally agree with this answer - I think it could be improved by cleaning up a little bit of the language, but I was suspicious of their conclusion, and I think the criticism that you bring to it is spot-on. Thank you.
    – Zibbobz
    Dec 15 '20 at 15:23
  • @Zibbobz: It would help me it you were more specific about what you think should be edited. Dec 15 '20 at 15:56
  • 1
    In particular this sentence, "There are people who are 'certain' of all sorts of crazed things: that the Earth is flat, that space-aliens are being held in Area 51, that Tupac and Kurt Cobain are still alive and sharing an apartment in Queens."
    – Zibbobz
    Dec 15 '20 at 16:35

In general it's a bad idea to ask questions about ongoing investigations. All I can tell you is that AG of Michigan has labelled that report as not credible:

Attorney General Dana Nessel and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, in an Antrim County court hearing today, did not object to the public release of a report on Dominion software from the partisan organization Allied Security Operations Group (ASOG), in order to demonstrate the “report” is actually another in a long stream of misguided, vague and dubious assertions designed to erode public confidence in the November presidential election.


A lawsuit filed in 13th Circuit Court, Bailey v Antrim County, seeks to challenge Antrim County’s election results, posing false claims of fraud and accompanied with a report filled with errors and clear bias.

“Oftentimes, a party will hire an expert witness to support the conclusion that the party wants or needs to reach. It’s why we give the other parties in a lawsuit a chance to depose the expert and challenge their qualifications in court,” Attorney General Nessel said. “Anyone can have an opinion, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the opinion is based on fact or science.”

ASOG authored the “preliminary forensic audit,” which was made public by the judge today. The group, however, has no apparent expertise in election administration and technology. Their work is limited to the previous release and amplification of other false information and fake documents. As expected, the plaintiff’s most recent report on Antrim County is similarly critically flawed, filled with dramatic conclusions without any evidence to support them.


In response to a previously unsigned version of the ASOG report, Michigan Bureau of Elections Director Jonathan Brater made a preliminary declaration under oath for the court. In his statement, Brater said it was apparent to him “… that the report makes a series of unsupported conclusions, ascribes motives of fraud and obfuscation to processes that are easily explained as routine election procedures or error corrections, and suggests without explanation that elements of election software not used in Michigan are somehow responsible for tabulation or reporting.”


The public will be able to view the Department of State’s official audit of the Antrim County presidential election. Details will be announced prior to the audit’s commencement on Thursday, Dec. 17.

  • For what's worth it, the ASOG "forensics report" is signed by Russ Ramsland, (who ran in the Republican primaries a while back). Politifact rates one of his statements on the 2020 election as "pants on fire"... and that was actually in an affidavit
    – Fizz
    Dec 15 '20 at 17:18

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .