Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

News Clash

Clash Poll: Which Explanation Of Pennsylvania’s 200k Vote Discrepancy Do You Believe?

Become a Clash Insider!

Big Tech is clamping down on conservative media big time. Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Follow Doug on Parler @TheGilesWay.

In an election where the election security safeguards were systematically dismantled, only the greatest of fools would be surprised when citizens are deeply suspicious of all the anomalies that turn up.

Especially when those anomalies almost universally favor one candidate.

There is another contested anomaly, which either was big enough to swing an election OR was just a tempest in a teacup, depending on who you believe.

A number of objections being raised against the authenticity of the official result in Pennsylvania…

…includes one interesting point in particular.

Now, unlike the mainstream media, we’ll give you both sides of the story here, and you can decide whose explanation for this discrepancy you find more convincing.

In light of the fact that we have had 4 years of ‘resist’ politics, an extensive and elaborate push to change election laws to make them LESS secure after 4 years of harping that Russians had somehow rigged the last one, of news media taking no interest in poll watchers being systematically excluded from the vetting process, and massive vote swings coming in for Biden, after hours with nobody present to vet them in the exact battleground states he had to win seems sketchy. Seeing Zuckerberg effectively conscript election officials in a partisan get-out-the-vote effort, and a sitting judge refuse to recuse herself from hearing a case that directly affects the political agenda of her sister (Stacy Abrams) underscores the fact that this really isn’t about having a free and fair election.

Our suspicions are already running high going into this.

And now we see a potential discrepancy of 200k votes?

Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania say an “alarming discrepancy” in the presidential vote count is two times larger than the margin of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the state.

Their analysis, released on Monday by state Rep. Frank Ryan and more than a dozen colleagues, found different vote counts when comparing Election Day data from counties and the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, or SURE, system used by Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar. They also raised suspicions about there being tens of thousands fewer votes in the presidential race than overall ballots. –MSN

The left claims there’s a very simple and reasonable explanation for what’s really going on.

“These findings call into question the accuracy of the SURE system, consistency in the application of the Pennsylvania Election Code from county to county, and the competency of those charged with oversight of elections in our Commonwealth,” Ryan said. “These numbers just don’t add up, and the alleged certification of Pennsylvania’s presidential election results was absolutely premature, unconfirmed and in error.”

Wanda Murren, a department spokesperson, said Tuesday the “analysis” amounts to nothing more than “obvious misinformation” on the same level as the president’s failed legal challenges to overturn the election results. President-elect Joe Biden won Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes with a narrow 81,000 ballot victory – an outcome that President Donald Trump says came via widespread fraud.

…Murren said the discrepancies exist because a few counties have yet to upload their full vote histories into the SURE system – including Philadelphia, Allegheny, Butler and Cambria – which would account for a “significant” number of voters.

…“To put it simply, this so-called analysis was based on incomplete data,” she added. — TheCenterSquare

We’ll kick this question over to our readers.

Do you accept their explanation of ‘incomplete data’? Or is this an example of smoking-gun evidence?

Wes Walker

Wes Walker is the author of "Blueprint For a Government that Doesn't Suck". He has been lighting up since its inception in July of 2012. Follow on twitter: @Republicanuck

Related Articles