Fraud Indicators Skyrocket in Minnesota Presidential Elections From 2016 Onwards

Election Truth Alliance

SubscribeSign in

Fraud Indicators Skyrocket in Minnesota Presidential Elections From 2016 Onwards<br>One Political Party Appears To Predominantly Benefit

Election Truth Alliance<br>May 13, 2026

458

83<br>293

Share

Independent analysis of publicly-available election data shows a sharp uptick of fraud indicators in Minnesota Presidential elections in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections — and that these fraud indicators appear to predominantly benefit the Republican Party.<br>The methods used to detect this uptick are used to detect systematic election interference internationally, such as the large-scale stuffing of ballot boxes or the reporting of falsified numbers. In recent decades and still to this day, most votes in the United States are cast or counted electronically; as such, votes cast in U.S. elections are more vulnerable to electronic vote manipulation than to the physical stuffing of ballot boxes.<br>Two charts depicting our findings (by candidate/party appearing to benefit) are shown below:

Subscribe

Share<br>What Was Our Approach?<br>The ETA analyzed publicly-available data provided by the Minnesota Secretary of State. We used peer-reviewed methods utilized internationally in our approach.<br>Data was cleaned, validated, and analyzed and reworked by separate analysts to ensure reproducibility for all Presidential elections in Minnesota since 1984, the last statewide General Election before modern computerized tabulators became widespread. Due to the major uptick in fraud indicators beginning in the 2016 election, our in-depth analysis narrowed in on those three more recent elections (2016, 2020, and 2024) as well as the 1984 Presidential election as a ‘clean’, pre-computerized ballot-counting baseline.

What Did We Find?<br>Our analysis indicates that the 2016, 2020, and 2024 Presidential Election data displays patterns inconsistent with organic human voting behavior and shows statistical signs consistent with vote manipulation based on the works of international election forensics experts. Our analysis of the 1984 Election did not reveal the same statistical indicators of fraud. Between 1984 and 2016, no election exceeded the minimum threshold to qualify as ‘detected’ fraud per the Klimek et al. method.<br>The term ‘vote manipulation’ is used here to mean the act of tampering with cast votes in such a way that votes are added, removed, or switched. The term ‘fraud indicators’ is used here to describe a specific pattern that appears when elections are manipulated via stuffing of votes or reporting falsified numbers — specifically, where one candidate or party receives an unexpectedly high vote share in areas of very high reported voter turnout.

Observations:<br>The 1984 U.S. General Election in Minnesota provides a clean hand-counted baseline with no signs of large-scale vote manipulation signatures. The 1984 Minnesota election and the recent 2025 Canadian Federal Election (Election Truth Alliance, 2026) both used paper ballots and hand and/or non-computerized counting methods. Neither of those elections show large-scale vote manipulation signatures.

By contrast, the Presidential races in 2016, 2020, and 2024 all exhibit a clear and significant relationship between candidate support and turnout consistent with peer-reviewed, empirical approaches for detecting vote manipulation. These elections stand in clear contrast to the clean-appearing hand-counted 1984 baseline.

The anomalies include:<br>Vote share distributions by number of precincts that were close to a normal distribution in 1984 grew increasingly skewed across all three recent elections, which represents a major deviation from normal voting behavior.

Uniform turnout to vote share correlations (i.e. when turnout and vote share for a single party rise in lockstep across polling stations) do not appear to be explained by any known natural voting behavior and could indicate systematic, coordinated intervention inflating results in favor of a given candidate or party.

Even after controlling for sociodemographic, electoral factors, and voting methods, turnout continues to maintain a strong and significant relationship with vote share.

Recommendations:<br>The Election Truth Alliance concludes that the results from our report warrants urgent scrutiny through independent verification methods administered or monitored by non-partisan independent organizations to determine what factors are producing these patterns.<br>These methods include:<br>full hand recounts (preferably county-wide);

hand-counted ballot audits;

chain-of-custody reviews;

registration e-pollbook data audit; and,

tabulator software/cyber audit.

A longform report detailing our full findings (including regression analysis to control for demographic factors, features of the election administration, and vote methods) and an additional shortform report are posted on our website.

What Can You Do?<br>Share...