Did Michigan ‘Magically’ Find 138,339 Votes for Joe Biden?

No.

By
22

A Facebook post featuring a screenshot of a tweet about Michigan election results reads as follows:

So while everyone was asleep and after everyone went home, Democrats in Michigan magically found a trove of 138,339 votes, and all 138,339 of those “votes” magically went to Biden? That doesn’t look suspicious at all.

The 138,339 votes for Biden cited in the above post were the result of a data error in a graphic from Decision Desk HQ, a credible, non-partisan election news and analysis source. 

A representative from Decision Desk HQ issued the following statement to BuzzFeed News about the clerical error: 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
22
By
Comments (22)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Laurie

    Thanks for the thorough explanation and please keep these fact checks coming! As misinformation arises, we may need to have quick access to the truth. Well done!

    Collapse
  2. Joe1776

    I think it would be interesting to understand how these mail in votes are counted. Let's say there is a dispute about whether a signature matches etc. Then what happens to the inside confidential ballot envelope?

    What I hear from lawyers who litigate this stuff is it is a real mess. But because mail in ballots used to be relatively uncommon the disputes typically do not involve large enough numbers to change an election.

    Collapse
  3. Joe1776

    People are saying that republicans are not allowed to see the ballots in PA. They are forced to stand so far away they could not possibly see if there are issues with the signature or postmark of the ballots in order to determine they are legal votes. Is that true?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Afalstein

      Do we normally do that? I didn't know there were supposed to be official party representatives looming over ballot counters' shoulders double-checking everything.

      Collapse
    2. JayG

      Official poll watchers should be. Not random Republicans.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Devin H

      Do you mean official challengers or just random Republicans? If they aren't election judges or official challengers then they have no business looking at the roster during election day

      Collapse
      1. Joe1776

        I don't know for sure but my impression is that the republicans are saying the official poll watchers are not allowed to be close enough to see the actual signatures or postmarks. It sounds like a court ruling forced the democrats to allow them access now:

        https://nypost.com/2020/11/05/philadelphia-vote-count-stopped-as-democrats-appeal-ruling/

        I am not sure why they didn't allow them to see the hundreds of thousands of ballots that were processed earlier.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Justin Perry-Naw Dawg Doctrine

          For what it's worth, the distancing precautions imposed were established by Bipartisan legislation. My understanding is that the justice basically allowed them to be a little closer, but not too close (very judicial like). I hope Sarah talks more about this, but aside from "observing", I think the only time representatives from each party come into play is when there is an actual question/issue with the ballot? So the two representatives can stand there and watch the general process, they don't really come into play when there's a decision about accepting or rejecting a ballot.

          Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    John M.

    The longer the election is in limbo, the more disinformation and rumors about voter fraud will emerge.

    Great job keeping up with all the fact checking. I just subscribed to this site today. Love the diligence and honest reporting.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Brett S.

    I got in two arguments with family over this. Arguments with nasty attitude. I provided the fact check and just got distain and attitude from both. I get it..... they're upset Trump is likely losing. There wasn't a red wave that made this concrete. This is what Dems went through when Hilary lost.... a state of disbelief.

    Just sharing my story of the short term bad affects of the fact check which hopefully have long term positive influence.

    Collapse
  6. Jennifer Patton

    I will be so happy when this is all over. So effing happy.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Jasonn

    Thank you! Was seeing this passed around on Twitter *a lot*...

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Old guy named Bill (OGNB)

    Thank you for this fact check!

    Collapse
  9. Jeffrey Gegler

    Great explanation, but edit that last sentence! It drove me nuts! :-)

    Collapse
  10. Fatigued Testudine

    Good to have the fact check. It would be better if this outfit didn't make the error in the first place. With all the problems with any semblance of accurate reporting nowadays, outfits putting out information to the public should be triple checking everything for accuracy.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tom B.

      The state of Michigan made the error. DDHQ "eats" data from the state, possibly via an API, and posts them directly. DDQH has neither the resources nor the ability to check these numbers in real time. When the state sent them a corrected result, they updated quickly. How exactly should DDHQ be checking the results from every state? How many people should they employ to do so? And how long would it take?

      Collapse
Load More