These Patterns Aren’t Consistent with a Free and Fair Election

Expert Analysis Flags Statistical Irregularities in Pennsylvania’s 2024 Vote

A new statistical analysis by a leading election forensics expert has identified irregularities in Pennsylvania’s 2024 presidential vote count, prompting questions about the election’s integrity and calls for further investigation.

Dr. Walter R. Mebane Jr., a professor of political science and statistics at the University of Michigan, released a working report in May 2025 examining precinct-level data from Philadelphia, Allegheny, and Erie counties. Using his independent methodology cited in legal and academic contexts, Mebane estimates that approximately 28,829 votes in those three counties appear anomalous and may have been improperly added or distorted.

The number is not definitive proof of fraud, and the report does not allege wrongdoing by any individual or election official. However, the analysis suggests that the number of questionable votes may account for roughly 24 percent of Trump’s 120,000-vote margin of victory in Pennsylvania. Mebane does not extrapolate beyond the counties analyzed, but if similar patterns were found statewide, the total number of potentially affected votes could theoretically exceed the margin of victory in the Pennsylvania 2024 election.

Mebane is internationally recognized for his work in election forensics. His statistical tools have been used to assess vote integrity in contentious elections in Iran, Russia, and Bolivia. The current report builds on his established methodology to identify deviations from expected voting patterns based on historical and demographic models. According to Mebane, the patterns observed in Pennsylvania are not typical of normal electoral behavior and suggest the presence of statistical “fingerprints” consistent with manipulation or error.

While this doesn’t conclusively prove wrongdoing, the patterns aren’t consistent with a free and fair election.

The irregularities were concentrated in precincts with high rates of in-person voting on Election Day, particularly in Philadelphia County. While the report does not identify a specific cause, it rules out some forms of large-scale interference, such as ballot-stuffing or widespread vote flipping. Instead, it points to precinct-level anomalies that may indicate localized inconsistencies, the causes of which remain unclear without further investigation.

The study has not yet undergone peer review, and its findings are limited to three of the state’s 67 counties. Mebane notes that his report should be interpreted as a call for further inquiry rather than a conclusive assessment. Still, given Pennsylvania’s central role in determining the outcome of the 2024 election, the report has attracted attention from election officials, political analysts, and national security experts.

Statistical anomalies like these merit serious national security attention, particularly in combination with known breaches like what happened in Georgia after the 2020 U.S. election. These data anomalies are indicators of a potentially compromised environment — one that foreign or domestic adversaries could exploit without leaving a trace.

Concerns about the security of voting systems have grown steadily in recent years. In 2022, Georgia officials revealed that individuals working with members of Donald Trump’s legal team had arranged unauthorized access to confidential voting software in Coffee County, Georgia. The breach, which occurred in the months following the 2020 U.S. general election, resulted in the extraction of sensitive election software from machines still used in several battleground states, including Pennsylvania.

A group of over 20 election security experts sent a letter expressing serious concerns to the Georgia State Elections Board in 2022, later issuing a public warning about the 2023 breach, stating that the release of proprietary software could allow malicious actors to create counterfeit ballots, alter vote counts, or compromise election systems. The letter, addressed to senior officials including Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray, described the incident as a serious threat to election integrity and national security.

The full details of the Coffee County breach remained undisclosed to the public until well into the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign. In February 2024, a Georgia-based non-profit called the Coalition for Good Governance submitted a 274-page filing claiming that Coffee County election officials obstructed, concealed, and withheld evidence regarding the breach.

While there is no confirmed connection between the Coffee County breach and the statistical irregularities found in Pennsylvania, the shared use of vulnerable voting systems has intensified scrutiny of election infrastructure across multiple states. The 2024 U.S. election was also disrupted by bomb threats targeting polling places in predominantly Democratic areas. The FBI later attributed these threats to actors linked to Russia, raising additional concerns about efforts to influence the vote through disruption and intimidation.

If hostile actors access and study election systems, subtle interference becomes harder to detect and easier to execute, and therefore, Mebane’s findings raise serious questions that warrant closer scrutiny.

Since returning to office, President Trump has implemented a series of executive actions affecting federal oversight of elections. These moves include dismissals of senior personnel responsible for ethics, cybersecurity, foreign election interference, and election monitoring. The speed and fervor with which election oversight systems have been dismantled following the 2024 U.S. election have raised serious questions about the administration’s motives. Critics say the changes have undermined key institutions tasked with safeguarding the democratic process, while supporters argue they reflect a broader effort to centralize federal governance and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.

In this environment, Mebane’s findings take on added significance. Although the report does not establish intent or assign blame, it does provide indications that the 2024 election in Pennsylvania may not have met expected standards of integrity. If these irregularities contributed to the outcome of the race, then it raises important questions about the reliability of the systems upon which our democratic legitimacy depends.

The Mebane report calls for further investigation into the causes and consequences of election anomalies. The statistical signals found in Pennsylvania cannot be easily dismissed and merit serious and urgent attention from state and federal authorities.

“The data points to something worth investigating,” said Nathan Taylor, Executive Director of the Election Truth Alliance. “Protecting the integrity of future elections depends upon paying attention to these signals and on our ability to be clear-eyed about addressing election security vulnerabilities in the United States.”