While the election results of 2016 came through, Donald Trump stunned both sides by winning four major swing states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, and Wisconsin – that had strongly favored Hillary Clinton. It seemed she had locked Florida up with early voting on its own, while the other three have reliably voted blue for a generation. What’s more suspicious, however, than Trump winning these states was that he won all of them by the same margin.
The explanation that is most common of Trump’s shocking election win was each of the country’s professional pollsters – even though they all work independently and use separate methodologies – somehow overlooked the same Trump voter pockets in these states. If these pockets existed, they would have varied in size in all four states, causing each to produce wins of different size.
Any statistician will say a reasonable result distribution would have involved Trump winning a state by one percent, one by maybe three percent, another by two percent, and losing one by one percent, or something similar. But the tallies of votes didn’t look like any type of natural distribution. They looked stunningly the same, in fact.
The New York Times explained the breakdown of the voting results: In Florida, Trump won by a little over one percent. In Pennsylvania, he won by slightly over one percent as well. In Michigan, he won by a little below one percent. Finally, in Wisconsin, he won by one percent exactly. Numbers don’t work that way in real life.
By itself, this oddly consistent dispersion of numbers among the four U.S. states that decided the results of the election could be brushed off as just a fluke. However, considering the context of the many other ways the voting tallies didn’t make any mathematical sense, it suggests someone had rigged or altered the numbers.
It specifically suggests some hacker had tweaked these four states in Trump’s favor by the perfect one percent that he needed, to avoid arousing suspicion by giving him a win that was too great in the states that he would have lost. If so, though, the pattern of Trump winning all these states by just one percent is suspicious, because numbers just don’t work like that in the first place.