Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gab TV, Truth Social, Gettr, Twitter
Guest post by Matthew Tyrmand
Follow @Matthewtyrmand on Twitter
Following up on the first round analysis applying Newcomb-Benford’s Law that we were given by a source representing a group of international experts in political science, mathematics, elections, accounting fraud, and forensic analysis- our technical expert(s) source provided a just completed new document presenting statistical findings on the Second Round of Brazilian elections, which occurred on October 30, 2022.
The source applied Benford’s Law, a highly recognized statistical formula, to analyze publicly available data provided by the Brazilian Electoral Court (TSE). All the data was culled straight from the public site which has always been the repository for these results- both historical data and new data in real time as ballots get tabulated and vote counts published.
The formula, which is used to demonstrate inconsistencies in data sets and raise red flags that suggest an audit should be undertaken to gauge if fraud actually did occur. This study does suggest inconsistencies in the voting tabulation in several regions across the country. According to the source team, in the second round analysis they have observed MORE illogical numerical distributions than in the first round data.
Oddly enough, and unprecedentedly so but not altogether surprisingly so given what has transpired in Brazil as of late, is that the access to this data disappeared for a spell this past weekend. Given the behavior of the TSE (Electoral Court) and STF (Supreme Court), both led by one man- Alexandre de Moraes, this temporary data removal from the public domain has only fueled more distrust of the hyper politicized, partisan, & weaponized courts and the electoral administrative bodies working hand in glove with these jurists such as Moraes and another long time judge Luis Roberto Barroso, who was caught on a hot mic saying “you don’t win elections, you take elections.”
The newest report, much like the first one, shows similarities with previous Venezuelan and Iranian elections as well. What is especially alarming is that in several graphs, the inconsistent data points are basically identical to the first round’s inconsistent data points. It is very unusual for the inconsistencies to repeat itself in two rounds of the same election. This raises even more red flags than with the first round being taken alone – and made more so now that one can make comparative assessments between the two rounds.
Amidst this society wide debate in Brazil on the integrity of this recent and not-yet-conceded election, the clamp down on “dissidents” (Ie: anyone who sees political issues differently than the courts and wishes to hold public forum debate through social media), has transpired against numerous politicians, journalists, and even cultural figures from the arts. Many have lost their social media profiles resultant from unilateral diktats handed down by judicial fiat with no due process and with this power concentrated in that one same set of hands- the head of both the Supreme Court and the Electoral Court – Alexandre de Moraes.
Even the NYT, no friend to the incumbent president Jair Bolsonaro, has written about the risks to Brazilian democracy with so few checks and balances in place to curtail monarchical levels of overreach by Moraes. In Brazil, social media is especially prevalent across civil society and it is the modus operandi for tens of millions to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their society writ large. The people are not pleased and are making that sentiment known with a mass protest movement developing across the country and present in every single city. As a result, Moraes has clamped down and even forced off social media three elected representatives of the people of the Brazilian congress (Carla Zambelli, Gustavo Gayer, Nikolas Ferreira- with more no doubt in coming days joining their ranks as digitally voiceless in a supposedly free society). Moraes has been threatening mass fines and penalties to platform companies and even the threat of full national shutdown of large platforms if they do not comply.
We recommend that people read the document themselves and draw their own conclusions. And if compelled to do so- please share widely. What is needed more than ever is discussion about the election, where evidence might be brought to light, the behavior of the courts meant to serve justice (not politics), and discussion around indications of these potential misdeeds that look to have co-opted this pivotal election.
Follow @Matthewtyrmand on Twitter
Matthew Tyrmand is an investigative and editorial political journalist who splits time between the USA and Europe (given his Polish American roots). He has worked on corruption investigations, electoral analysis, forensic auditing the public sector and serves on the boards and in the management of several of the top American journalist and activist organizations. He is often seen across American and European media and is a frequent guest on Bannon’s WarRoom and Polish television (TVP World).
Leave a Reply