Geoffrey Riggs

riggsco@gmail.com
310-562-8373

MEMORANDUM
Date: November 24, 2020

RE: A Mathematician’s View of the 2020 Pennsylvania Presidential Election

Much has been written and said about the results of the 2020 Pennsylvania presidential
election. In the days following the election, as mail-in ballots (“MIBs”) were being counted, much of
these spoken and written words were dedicated to explaining what was transpiring as a natural and
totally predictable shift in the election, one that even deserved a name, the “blue shift.” Given the size
of the lead President Trump had amassed from in person election day voting, I was skeptical from the
start of what appeared to be a storyline rather than the result of critical analysis. As I progressed
further and further in my analysis and organization of the data surrounding the selection, and in learning
about and considering the unique attributes of mail in voting, some of which significantly affect the way
information on these ballots and the votes they represent should be interpreted and accounted for.

So much of the opinions that were expressed were attributed to percentages and ratios in
particular, data that in this case are broadly subject to error, misinterpretation and misunderstanding,
and above all based on selective recognition or as the case may be nonrecognition of key data items.
Although the conclusions I reached about the vote count and Biden’s inevitable march to victory can be
expressed in terms of percentages and ratios, I find it much more instructive and much less susceptible
to error to focus my attention simply on the numbers of votes, something we all can relate.

The conclusion I reached on the results of the election and the closely related issue explaining
the role mail-in ballots played in those results was that the results could not be achieved by any
reasonable or probable effect caused by known election and/or vote counting phenomena. From a
mathematical perspective, the numbers involved – numbers of votes cast in person, numbers of MIBs,
size of Trump’s margin when counting of MIBs was fully underway – simply did not allow for the results
that occurred except under extraordinary and highly improbable circumstances.

Here is what I mean by all that:

The numbers below represent the situation existing as of the completion of in person voting on
November 3 and assuming that no counting of mail-in ballots had yet occurred. This assumption is of
course not true in the sense that there was no hard line marking the end of counting for in person votes
in the beginning of counting of mail-in ballots, but the assumption assists in explaining the challenges
facing Biden, which neither increased nor diminished based on the timing of mail-in ballot counting and
Geoffrey Riggs
November 27, 2020
Memorandum re: Mathematician’s View of the 2020 Election
Page 2

in person vote counting. It is worth mentioning an important characteristic of mail-in ballots in a

situation such as this. The mail-in ballots in this case are in essence a closed universe. That is to say they
have already been cast as votes in some definite number contained in the block that had been received
by election officials. While we might not know the exact numbers of votes a portion between the
candidates, we did know their overall numbers, as well as the numbers broken down by the party
affiliations of the voters who had submitted them. These were important pieces of information to keep
in mind. Another unique characteristic of these ballots directly due to the closed universe character of
their existence was that each vote counted would have a direct impact on the entire group of votes
remaining but unaccounted. In addition temporary advantages or disadvantages vote count over a small
period of time would have the inverse impact again on remaining uncounted votes. Finally, unlike
traditional in person voting, there would be no cavalry riding in at the end of the process with some
unaccounted for unforeseen votes for either candidate. Everything was right there in front of us to be
uncovered. The numbers below, by the way are reprinted from the Excel spreadsheet accompanying this
memo, entitled “Exhibit_MathematiciansView.xlsx”. Feel free to open that document and follow along.

So, here was the situation existing at the close of in person voting. As can clearly be seen,
Trump was leading by a fairly massive 1,321,217 votes. Biden’s hope for a comeback was held
somewhere in the next column of information on MIBs. 1,665,504 of these had been submitted by
registered Democrats. 600,455 by registered Republicans. 287,136 had been submitted by third-party or
independent voters (I’ve taken the liberty of deducting the votes that would eventually be cast for the
libertarian candidates, which leaves 262,446 votes that would be apportioned between Biden and
Trump in as yet undetermined amounts. Consider for a moment, just in terms of the numbers, the
challenge Biden faced. He could fairly reliably count on gaining almost all, but not exactly all, of the
1,665,504 ballots submitted by registered Democrats. Subsequent exit polls would identify the
percentage that he probably could not count on as approximately 7%, sometimes referred to as the
crossover vote. But let’s you biting with some optimism here, so let’s cut that rate in half and say Biden
could count on all of that block of registered Democrat ballots less 3 ½%, giving him a net expectation of
1,607,211 votes. Now from the next block of ballots, those submitted by registered Republicans, Biden
would not be quite so lucky. Exit polls would put the amount of those Republican ballots he could
reasonably expect to receive at 8%, but again let’s be optimistic for Biden and estimate his expectation
at 10%, or 60,045 votes. Now onto the independent ballots, of which there are quite a large number,
262,446. How many of these pray tell my Biden reasonably expect. Well again are exit polls tell us that
he could expect to receive 52% of these, but again let’s be optimistic for by and say he could count on
55% of these, or 144,345 votes. So where does that leave us? As the table below shows, it leads by with
1,811,601 new votes to add to his 1,407,529 votes from election day, giving a total of 3,319,130 votes,
and nice total to be sure.

But before we go cracking open the bubbly, we should, just as a formality really, she worked
Trump ends up. Well, you know it did give Biden an overwhelming percentage of the registered
Geoffrey Riggs
November 27, 2020
Memorandum re: Mathematician’s View of the 2020 Election
Page 3

Democrat ballots, Trump would get his measly 3 ½% of those, or 58,293 votes. Hey, how is that
possible? He’s only getting 3.5% from the registered Democrat ballots, and Biden is getting 10% of the
Republican ballots, how can they be almost the same number of votes? Or that is because there were
more registered Democrat ballots in this overall block of MIBs and this happens to be one circumstance
where having a greater number of potential votes in the block is going to make you more vulnerable to
crossover voting then the candidate with fewer partyline votes in the block. So to continue, Trump
would get his 90% of the registered Republican ballots giving him 540,410 votes from that block. And
45% of the independent votes, or 118,101 votes, but as nice as what Biden received but not so bad
either. So Trump gets a total of 708,475 of these new votes, which when added to his 2,728,746 votes
from election day gives him a new total of 3,445,549 votes. What? Wait a minute, that can’t be true, can
it? That would make him the winner by well over 200,000 votes. Well yes, that can be true, and very
likely would’ve been true but for some outside influence on election.

But what happened to Biden’s 78% share of all votes that he was going to capture throughout
the count of MIBs? Well, it went the way of the tooth fairy or Santa Claus or it should have at any rate.
All this talk of percentages and ratios and Biden easily maintaining a 4 to 1 or 3 to 1 advantage in voting
throughout the count based on a temporary advantage she achieved in the counting of MIBs on election
day was so much idle chatter, having little or nothing to do with reality.

The other sections of the attached exhibit show other scenarios, but you could fill free to enter
any values you like to see how it turns out. The one scenario I like the best perhaps is the last one,
scenario F which shows that with equivalent zero crossover rates between registered Democrat and
Republican ballots, Trump would only need to capture 2% of the independent vote to emerge the victor.
I take that example is full support for my conclusion that it was unrealistic to the point of completely
improbable for Biden to have emerged with the victory that he did.

To provide an illustration, Scenario D represents the situation if Biden could count on winning
80% of the independent vote and enjoy an 8 to 1 advantage in crossover voting. This would indeed
provide them with roughly the margin of error that he attained in the actual election, but you have to
ask yourself how likely is this scenario. I’ll save you the trouble. It’s not even remotely likely. Similarly,
the final scenario to the right, scenario E, contemplates the situation if neither party had any crossover
votes and 12 point just 2% of the independent vote,, this would be enough to give him victory.
Reality is the number of votes. In the number of votes tells us that even with granting Biden
significant margins above what the data would indicate, he still falls almost 200,000 votes short of
victory

In Person Ballots by
Geoffrey Riggs
November 27, 2020
Memorandum re: Mathematician’s View of the 2020 Election
Page 4

Votes* Party Affl

Candidat
e Party A B
Biden D 1,407,529 1,665,504 1,607,211
Trump R 2,728,746 600,455 60,045
3rdPty 3RD 53,261 24,690
Indep Ind 0 262,446 144,345
4,189,536 2,553,095 1,831,601

To drive home this very basic truth that most of us could have worked out well before junior
high school, I’m going to refer once again to the Excel spreadsheet exhibit that accompanies this memo.
Moving to the next section to the right of the opening section, this one entitled scenario a, you will note
there are spaces to enter different values, identify by the yellow highlight. You will note that I have
already entered the variable values that just we just used: 55% for Biden share the independent vote, 3
½% Le crossover rate for the registered Democrat ballots, and 10% for the registered Republican ballots
t’s go ahead and enter the values we just discussed: 55% in cell T2, representing Biden’s share of the
independent vote
Ballots
person would be avoided for obvious reasons. Online would leave a digital trail that would have
to be obscured. The mail option has a lot of advantages.

Using a hard copy application form, the implementers could mass-produce applications by
software configured to pull data from the Pennsylvania Full Voter Export file (or alternatively could use a
digital version of the form to be filled out and then printed), which contains all information required on
the form about the registered voter with two exceptions in this case. The Full Voter Export file also
contains numerous data items that would be of use in screening the list for voters with desirable
attributes, one of which would be a track record for not voting very often (although if the snafu over
duplicate applications described on page 4 of this document was actually caused by this scheme, it
would indicate that the thieves didn’t put too much effort into screening their potential applicants).

Another advantage of using the mail option is one of the more glaring security gaps in the mail-
in ballot application process. As can be seen on the form, a copy of which I am enclosing with this email
(“PA DOS_mailinapplication”), and the instructions, a voter is able to designate a different mailing
address for delivery of his or her mail-in ballot (section 4 of the application). Simply by requiring that the
ballot be sent to the residence address listed on the voters registration file, Pennsylvania could have
effectively shut the door on scheme such as this. In this case, the thieves would have set up multiple
mail drops in counties where applicants whose identities they were stealing resided, and then simply
Geoffrey Riggs
November 27, 2020
Memorandum re: Mathematician’s View of the 2020 Election
Page 5

program these alternate mailing addresses into their automated systems

The last item the thieves would need to address would be the State of Pennsylvania’s proof of
identity measure. As noted in section 5 of the application, the applicant can prove his or her identity by
providing either a PA driver’s license or identity card number or the last four digits of the applicant’s
Social Security number – not the actual cards or even a copy of such cards, just the number. Personally,
I laugh when I’m asked to provide the last four digits of my Social Security number as proof of identity.
There must be a thousand people would know that number. At any rate, I doubt whether anyone with
connections in the Pennsylvania State or federal bureaucracies would have any trouble obtaining a list
of the last four digits of Social Security numbers for as many registered voters that they needed, or all of
them for that matter.

Checking signatures has been one security measure that states have attempted to use to
validate MIBs. For multiple reasons, this is not a factor in Pennsylvania. Even under the best of
circumstances, expecting a minimally trained worker brought on to assist in the vote counting process to
match signatures on an application against the voter’s registration file under extreme time pressure is
completely unrealistic. Even jurisdictions that have implemented computer-based signature checking
have run into significant problems due to the normal variations we all have when we execute
documents of one sort or another, especially when long periods of time may pass between one
signature and another (fairly often the case between voter registrations and elections). In more than
one jurisdiction using computers to check signatures, election officials have simply lowered the trust or
confidence level on the software in order to prevent interruptions or delays in the process, possibly to
the level where no l signatures are rejected.
All these issues are rendered moot in Pennsylvania, where the application form provides any
applicant who doesn’t want to provide a signature with an easy way out. As section 8 of the application
form indicates, simply by signing a statement that the applicant is unable to sign (presumably by making
an X or some other mark) and having a witness sign (who of course doesn’t have to validate or prove
anything), the signature requirement is easily avoided. Were that not enough, the October 20 decision
of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court signed the official death warrant to any signature requirements in
the Philadelphia election by actually prohibiting election officials from rejecting ballots (and I presume
applications for ballots) on the basis of signature mismatch.

Completing the Scheme

At this point the scheme to defraud the election is almost complete. After collecting the
fraudulent ballots from the various mail drops they had set up (referring here to mail drops that would
have been set up by the persons behind this scheme to receive the fraudulent mail-in ballots, not the
ballot mail drops set up by the state of Pennsylvania for voters to deliver their ballots to the state), the
final processing stage would have evolved opening the delivery envelopes, extracting the ballots,
Geoffrey Riggs
November 27, 2020
Memorandum re: Mathematician’s View of the 2020 Election
Page 6

running them through an automated system to record votes for Biden, loading the completed ballots
into the secrecy envelope, inserting those options into the outer mailing envelope, which would’ve
already been completed, adding postage, and putting them in the mail. Thieves would have to open the
delivery envelopes take out the ballots, and run them through an automated program to select Joe
Biden. Load those ballots into secret envelopes, put them in the second envelope, and send them back
to the state. Regular mail would have been the preferred method of delivery, since drop boxes provided
by the state, according to reports, were all under video surveillance, and of course personal delivery of
fraudulent mail-in ballots was not an option.
As the above description indicates, the principal challenges in executing this scheme would be
logistical – organizing the process and having enough workers available at the right time and place, etc.
Much of the process could be automated. Give the lengths to which Democrats have been willing to go
to defeat candidate and then to unseat President Trump, I have no doubt they would be willing to back
such a scheme and no doubt there would be no shortage of criminals anxious to implement the scheme
for the right price.

Determining If the Scheme Actually Occurred

Evidence that the scheme occurred includes:

 Computer models. Using a slightly altered version of the model that I used to produce the
arithmetic proof exhibits, I have been able to estimate within a very narrow range exactly how
many of these fraudulent ballots the conspirators would needed to submit and in what form.
My best educated guess at this time is that 200,000 fraudulent MIBs would be required. Given
the fact that the scheme would have been implemented before the final pre-election figures on
mail-in ballots were tabulated, the fraudulent MIBs should be included in those numbers. I
describe elsewhere how this constraint leads to the conclusion that the 200,000 fraudulent
MIBs were most likely submitted in the names of Republican registered voters. These are details
that investigators should be able to confirm. 200,000 fraudulent ballots in the name of
Republican registered voters would have found their way into the system undetected,
concealed within the 600,455 mail-in ballots submitted by registered Republican voters. The
200,000 additional fraudulent votes for Biden would have generated precisely the advantage in
vote count that Biden improbably enjoyed throughout the counting of mail-in ballots.
Knowledge that this advantage had been guaranteed beforehand would have given the Biden
campaign and their media sycophants the assurance to proclaim inevitable victory for Biden
from as early as November 4, even though at the time he was trailing President Trump by
overwhelming vote counts and victory, under normal circumstances, would have been far from
a foregone conclusion.
 Disproportionately large numbers of applications filed by certain counties and districts. While I
have not had time to explore this, I would expect to see anomalies in the number of applications
filed and MIBs submitted, classified by the party affiliation of the voter in certain counties –
Philadelphia and its surrounding counties as well as Allegheny would be logical candidates.
Geoffrey Riggs
November 27, 2020
Memorandum re: Mathematician’s View of the 2020 Election
Page 7

 The huge duplicate application snafu, reported in the press on or about October 20, to the effect
that over 370,000 applications for MIBs were rejected as duplicates. Mr. Giuliani mentioned this
in one of his recent press conferences in connection with a small number of fraudulent ballots.
The snafu to which I refer reported 370,000 rejections, 336,000 of which were for duplicate
applications. According to the press reports, the majority of these rejections occurred in
counties that were the most likely candidates for this strategy, including Philadelphia,
Montgomery, Allegheny and others. As Mr. Giuliani pointed out, duplicate applications would
be the principal undesired fallout from such a plan, although there is no indication that the
problem in October resulted in any kind of investigation to uncover the source of the problem.
For the thieves, it would have been a nonissue. If necessary, they would have had plenty of time
to apply for and submit more mail-in ballots, presumably being more careful about selecting
voters not likely to vote.
 Last but not least, the most convincing form of evidence supporting the existence of a plan like
this was Biden’s victory itself, attributed entirely to votes cast by MIBs, after President Trump
had emerged from Election Day voting with a 1,300,000 vote advantage.

Further Investigation to Validate Existence of the Scheme

There are a number of avenues available to validate whether or no a scheme of this magnitude
was implemented. Among the several clues such a scheme would leave in its wake would be 200,000
registered voters, most likely Republican registered voters, who did not vote in that 2020 election but
are identified in the updated, post-election Full Voter Export file as having voted.