I was looking at the live election map for the CA recall. According to the data, which comes from the Associated Press, Gruesome is winning with a total vote count of:

Question 1

no: 5,887,471 | 63.83%

yes: 3,335,779 | 36.17%

with currently 74% reporting.

I decided to look at question 2 on the ballot which was if you want to recall Gruesome, who do you want to replace him.

Looking at CA, adding up all the numbers I get a total of:

Question 2

5,086,288

Edit: 3,474,464 Republican Candidate (4% more than "yes")

That's 1.75 Million more people than voted "yes".

I am sure its possible that there were some people who didn't understand the point of how the ballots worked, but not more than 50% of the total population that voted "yes." People are stupid. That many people aren't that stupid.

Edit: On the ballot apparently people were told to vote for a candidate even if they vote "no" (hedge their bets) (I did not notice that on my ballot). This makes the above statement totally wrong. However, the data on this shows something interesting. In this case only 55% of people voted on both "yes" or "no" and voted for a candidate. That means 45% voted for just a "yes" or a "no" and left the candidate blank. That is a HUGE amount. I am not sure what that means, it could imply several things, but it smells like massive scale fuckery. As can be seen in the edits I included in each section, there are more votes for a Republican Candidate in every case than there are "yes" votes. This makes zero sense. I think this is a potentially useful place for more analysis.

I then decided to look at some counties.

San Francisco

Question 1

no: 232,877 | 86.69%

yes: 35,742 | 13.31%

with 80.5% reporting

Question 2:

96,060

Almost 3 times the total voting "yes".

Edit: 41,512 Republican Candidate (16% more than "yes")

Los Angeles County

Question 1

no: 1,598,140 | 70.85%

yes: 657,584 | 29.15%

with also 80.5% reporting

Question 2:

1,129,813

Almost double the number voting "yes".

Edit: 700,622 Republican Candidate (7% more than "yes")

San Diego

Question 1

no: 512975 | 58.60%

yes: 362449 | 41.40%

Question 2

554,844

65% more than voted "yes"

Edit: 396,864 Republican Candidate (9.5% more than "yes")

I decided to look at one of the larger "yes" dominants to see how accurate it was. I chose Fresno county.

Fresno

Question 1

yes: 90,181 | 50.19%

no: 89,502 | 49.81%

with 83.5% reporting

Question 2

117,224

31% more than apparently voted "yes".

Edit: 92,433 Republican Candidate (2.5% more than "yes")

I decided to look at a couple counties with mostly college town populations, otherwise thought to be Bastions of Blueness.

San Luis Obispo

Question 1

no: 37,977 | 59.17%

yes: 26,207 | 40.83%

53.8% reporting

Question 2

38,490

47% more than the "yes" vote.

Edit: 27,766 Republican Candidate (6% more than "yes")

Yolo

Question 1

no: 37,591 | 71.41%

yes: 15,052 | 28.59%

65.6% reporting

Question 2

27,366

Edit: 16,606 Republican Candidate (10% more than "yes")

Almost double the "yes" vote.

WE MUST BEGIN AUDIT PROCEDURES NOW!!!

Edit 2: I added in all the Republican Candidate totals according to this data. In each case the total that voted for Rep. was higher than the total 'yes" vote count. Even assuming not a single Democrat voted "yes" (which I know first hand is not true) the numbers most certainly do not add up.

Edit: It was pointed out to me that some Democrats might have "hedged their bets" by voting both "no" and voting for another candidate.

According to this data, there were 3,474,464 people who voted for a Republican Candidate (of the 3,335,779 that voted "yes"). If we assume every single Democrat voted "no" and did not hedge their bet with a Republican candidate, choosing instead one of the Dem, Ind, or Green candidates, then only 1,611,824 of the 5,887,471 "no"s (27%) hedged their bets in this way. Plausible I suppose, but unlikely on all counts. I know many otherwise democrats who wanted Gruesome out.

Still, it is a valid argument against my analysis to some extent.