Quote:

---

L: Where the proof?
C: Here ya go, lots of statistical evidence there was fraud.
L: Thats a debunked conspiracy theory.

Rinse and repeat.

---

Fify.

I'm a little skeptical of this because we don't know if ballot collection and sorting was uniform.

For example, some jurisdictions had separate drop boxes for ballots, apart from the regular mail. It's possible, for example, that Milwaukee ballots were collected at a central post office or municipal location prior to being delivered for counting. Thus they would have different characteristics.

To be clear, I'm not dismissing this evidence, but I don't think it's as clear as some suggest. It all depends on local policies and procedures.

We trust Science, Math? um, not so much / libs

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

---

Explain why LA, NYC, Houston, Dallas, Miami, etc. had zero issues like this then? Oh wait, you can't. You're speculating and trying to excuse what happened.

---

I'm not trying to excuse anything.

Unlike you, at no time am I making the ridiculous assumption that all cities and locales necessarily behave the same, especially superficially like the so-called "analyses" above. It wouldn't be surprising if they behave similarly, but it also wouldn't be surprising if they didn't.

You mentioned Benford's Law in another post. That is another example of making assumptions. That something does not quite follow Benford's Law means little without a thorough analysis of the data to see why it differs. All it can do is draw attention to some data that should probably be checked more thoroughly -- it does not, by itself, count as evidence.

eric76 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

---

Explain why LA, NYC, Houston, Dallas, Miami, etc. had zero issues like this then? Oh wait, you can't. You're speculating and trying to excuse what happened.

---

I'm not trying to excuse anything.

Unlike you, at no time am I making the ridiculous assumption that all cities and locales necessarily behave the same, especially superficially like the so-called "analyses" above. It wouldn't be surprising if they behave similarly, but it also wouldn't be surprising if they didn't.

You mentioned Benford's Law in another post. That is another example of making assumptions. That something does not quite follow Benford's Law means little without a thorough analysis of the data to see why it differs. All it can do is draw attention to some data that should probably be checked more thoroughly -- it does not, by itself, count as evidence.

---

You have no ide what you're talking about. Not only do the courts accept this as evidence of systemic fraud but they also allow it to be used to do audits.

Both this analysis and Benford's Law are direct mathematical evidence of significant statistical anomalies in the election that when looked at as a whole and all of the other issues do suggest a lot of fraud.

eric76 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

---

Explain why LA, NYC, Houston, Dallas, Miami, etc. had zero issues like this then? Oh wait, you can't. You're speculating and trying to excuse what happened.

---

I'm not trying to excuse anything.

Unlike you, at no time am I making the ridiculous assumption that all cities and locales necessarily behave the same, especially superficially like the so-called "analyses" above. It wouldn't be surprising if they behave similarly, but it also wouldn't be surprising if they didn't.

You mentioned Benford's Law in another post. That is another example of making assumptions. That something does not quite follow Benford's Law means little without a thorough analysis of the data to see why it differs. All it can do is draw attention to some data that should probably be checked more thoroughly -- it does not, by itself, count as evidence.

---

Why do these counties seem to be following the timeline of Boward County circa 2018? Why didn't Boward county have these issues this year?

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

---

Explain why LA, NYC, Houston, Dallas, Miami, etc. had zero issues like this then? Oh wait, you can't. You're speculating and trying to excuse what happened.

---

I'm not trying to excuse anything.

Unlike you, at no time am I making the ridiculous assumption that all cities and locales necessarily behave the same, especially superficially like the so-called "analyses" above. It wouldn't be surprising if they behave similarly, but it also wouldn't be surprising if they didn't.

You mentioned Benford's Law in another post. That is another example of making assumptions. That something does not quite follow Benford's Law means little without a thorough analysis of the data to see why it differs. All it can do is draw attention to some data that should probably be checked more thoroughly -- it does not, by itself, count as evidence.

---

You have no ide what you're talking about. Not only do the courts accept this as evidence of systemic fraud but they also allow it to be used to do audits.

Both this analysis and Benford's Law are direct mathematical evidence of significant statistical anomalies in the election that when looked at as a whole and all of the other issues do suggest a lot of fraud.

---

If courts accept that as evidence of fraud, the judge is a fool and should be removed for being incompetent.

It can help point to where to look for evidence of fraud, but it cannot be considered to be evidence of fraud in any scientific manner.

Stupid liberals think math is racist.

eric76 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

---

Explain why LA, NYC, Houston, Dallas, Miami, etc. had zero issues like this then? Oh wait, you can't. You're speculating and trying to excuse what happened.

---

I'm not trying to excuse anything.

Unlike you, at no time am I making the ridiculous assumption that all cities and locales necessarily behave the same, especially superficially like the so-called "analyses" above. It wouldn't be surprising if they behave similarly, but it also wouldn't be surprising if they didn't.

You mentioned Benford's Law in another post. That is another example of making assumptions. That something does not quite follow Benford's Law means little without a thorough analysis of the data to see why it differs. All it can do is draw attention to some data that should probably be checked more thoroughly -- it does not, by itself, count as evidence.

---

You have no ide what you're talking about. Not only do the courts accept this as evidence of systemic fraud but they also allow it to be used to do audits.

Both this analysis and Benford's Law are direct mathematical evidence of significant statistical anomalies in the election that when looked at as a whole and all of the other issues do suggest a lot of fraud.

---

If courts accept that as evidence of fraud, the judge is a fool and should be removed for being incompetent.

It can help point to where to look for evidence of fraud, but it cannot be considered to be evidence of fraud in any scientific manner.

---

There is legal precedent for it. The courts have already decided that statistical evidence can be used as evidence of fraud from the Ford vs Carter election.

https://macris.substack.com/p/how-might-election-fraud-get-litigated

Quote:

---

Question 5: Can expert opinion and statistical analysis be used as evidence to prove ballot fraud? The Donohue Court says, again, YES.

Plaintiffs, through the use of statistical survey techniques, sought to prove that the November 2, 1976, Presidential election in New York was permeated by voter fraud.

Plaintiffs' theory is that their sampling demonstrated that widespread irregularities probably deprived President Ford's electors of their victory. Where, as here, direct testimony is unobtainable, opinion testimony based on reliable hearsay is admissible.

The relevance of this testimony in determining the extent of the irregularities in the vote for Presidential electors depends directly on the "universe" selected for study. If the universe is properly defined, the reliability of the study, in turn, depends on whether the sample selected evidences the characteristics of the universe. The theory upon which a sample is admissible as proof of the universe is that ". . . the `universe' is, by reason of its uniformity or by reason of some predictable uniformity of recurrence of differences without it, susceptible of fair representation by a randomly selected sample, so that the characteristics of the `sample' will, within mathematically measurable limits of reliability, evidence the characteristics of the universe." Judge John F. Dooling, Jr., Polls, Samples, Surveys and Scientific Evidence, Seminar for Newly Appointed United States District Judges (Feb. 12-16, 1962, Monterey, Cal.). If the sample is properly selected, the characteristics of the sample may be attributed to the entire universe. Note, Public Opinion Surveys as Evidence: The Polls Go To Court, 66 Harv.L.Rev. 499 (1953).

This is another crucial point. The Trump campaign can introduce statistical evidence of voter fraud, and this evidence can be accepted as reliable if it is statistically sound.

---

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.

VitruvianAg said:

---

law-apt-3g said:

---

Well this is nice and everything and shows blatant evildoers involvement with the vote counting BUT data crunching can be abused like a climate stepchild.

This data should however be concluded science with the Green New Deal nuts.

---

Uhhh, science doesn't work that way, what's your undergrad degree??

---

Well, honestly the degree has nothing to do with knowing how to 'click'. You just gotta try.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. "Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded...
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

---

Explain why LA, NYC, Houston, Dallas, Miami, etc. had zero issues like this then? Oh wait, you can't. You're speculating and trying to excuse what happened.

---

I'm not trying to excuse anything.

Unlike you, at no time am I making the ridiculous assumption that all cities and locales necessarily behave the same, especially superficially like the so-called "analyses" above. It wouldn't be surprising if they behave similarly, but it also wouldn't be surprising if they didn't.

You mentioned Benford's Law in another post. That is another example of making assumptions. That something does not quite follow Benford's Law means little without a thorough analysis of the data to see why it differs. All it can do is draw attention to some data that should probably be checked more thoroughly -- it does not, by itself, count as evidence.

---

You have no ide what you're talking about. Not only do the courts accept this as evidence of systemic fraud but they also allow it to be used to do audits.

Both this analysis and Benford's Law are direct mathematical evidence of significant statistical anomalies in the election that when looked at as a whole and all of the other issues do suggest a lot of fraud.

---

If courts accept that as evidence of fraud, the judge is a fool and should be removed for being incompetent.

It can help point to where to look for evidence of fraud, but it cannot be considered to be evidence of fraud in any scientific manner.

---

There is legal precedent for it. The courts have already decided that statistical evidence can be used as evidence of fraud from the Ford vs Carter election.

https://macris.substack.com/p/how-might-election-fraud-get-litigated

Quote:

---

Question 5: Can expert opinion and statistical analysis be used as evidence to prove ballot fraud? The Donohue Court says, again, YES.

Plaintiffs, through the use of statistical survey techniques, sought to prove that the November 2, 1976, Presidential election in New York was permeated by voter fraud.

Plaintiffs' theory is that their sampling demonstrated that widespread irregularities probably deprived President Ford's electors of their victory. Where, as here, direct testimony is unobtainable, opinion testimony based on reliable hearsay is admissible.

The relevance of this testimony in determining the extent of the irregularities in the vote for Presidential electors depends directly on the "universe" selected for study. If the universe is properly defined, the reliability of the study, in turn, depends on whether the sample selected evidences the characteristics of the universe. The theory upon which a sample is admissible as proof of the universe is that ". . . the `universe' is, by reason of its uniformity or by reason of some predictable uniformity of recurrence of differences without it, susceptible of fair representation by a randomly selected sample, so that the characteristics of the `sample' will, within mathematically measurable limits of reliability, evidence the characteristics of the universe." Judge John F. Dooling, Jr., Polls, Samples, Surveys and Scientific Evidence, Seminar for Newly Appointed United States District Judges (Feb. 12-16, 1962, Monterey, Cal.). If the sample is properly selected, the characteristics of the sample may be attributed to the entire universe. Note, Public Opinion Surveys as Evidence: The Polls Go To Court, 66 Harv.L.Rev. 499 (1953).

This is another crucial point. The Trump campaign can introduce statistical evidence of voter fraud, and this evidence can be accepted as reliable if it is statistically sound.

---

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.

---

There is something you are really missing in your examples. In those examples, they are sampling proven frauds to draw statistical conclusions that argue that the fraud is widespread.

Benford's Law is completely different. With it, there are no proven cases of fraud, only the thought that something might be wrong because of the distribution of numbers in the data set that do not, by themselves prove anything.

eric76 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

---

Explain why LA, NYC, Houston, Dallas, Miami, etc. had zero issues like this then? Oh wait, you can't. You're speculating and trying to excuse what happened.

---

I'm not trying to excuse anything.

Unlike you, at no time am I making the ridiculous assumption that all cities and locales necessarily behave the same, especially superficially like the so-called "analyses" above. It wouldn't be surprising if they behave similarly, but it also wouldn't be surprising if they didn't.

You mentioned Benford's Law in another post. That is another example of making assumptions. That something does not quite follow Benford's Law means little without a thorough analysis of the data to see why it differs. All it can do is draw attention to some data that should probably be checked more thoroughly -- it does not, by itself, count as evidence.

---

The data analysis I saw is a LOT more than "doesn't quite follow" Benford's law. What was the R-factor, over 1.45? Crazy anomalous. I guess you would try to act like the anomaly wasn't that big, since you're trying to mislead us into thinking there was no fraud in the 1st place.

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

---

This is spot on.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

---

Explain why LA, NYC, Houston, Dallas, Miami, etc. had zero issues like this then? Oh wait, you can't. You're speculating and trying to excuse what happened.

---

I'm not trying to excuse anything.

Unlike you, at no time am I making the ridiculous assumption that all cities and locales necessarily behave the same, especially superficially like the so-called "analyses" above. It wouldn't be surprising if they behave similarly, but it also wouldn't be surprising if they didn't.

You mentioned Benford's Law in another post. That is another example of making assumptions. That something does not quite follow Benford's Law means little without a thorough analysis of the data to see why it differs. All it can do is draw attention to some data that should probably be checked more thoroughly -- it does not, by itself, count as evidence.

---

The data analysis I saw is a LOT more than "doesn't quite follow" Benford's law. What was the R-factor, over 1.45? Crazy anomalous. I guess you would try to act like the anomaly wasn't that big, since you're trying to mislead us into thinking there was no fraud in the 1st place.

---

If you are looking at Benford's Law and not looking closely at the data to see whether Benford's Law actually applies to that data, then you cannot draw any conclusions from Benford's Law. If you are drawing conclusions from it, then you don't have the foggiest idea what you are doing.

eric76 said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

---

Explain why LA, NYC, Houston, Dallas, Miami, etc. had zero issues like this then? Oh wait, you can't. You're speculating and trying to excuse what happened.

---

I'm not trying to excuse anything.

Unlike you, at no time am I making the ridiculous assumption that all cities and locales necessarily behave the same, especially superficially like the so-called "analyses" above. It wouldn't be surprising if they behave similarly, but it also wouldn't be surprising if they didn't.

You mentioned Benford's Law in another post. That is another example of making assumptions. That something does not quite follow Benford's Law means little without a thorough analysis of the data to see why it differs. All it can do is draw attention to some data that should probably be checked more thoroughly -- it does not, by itself, count as evidence.

---

The data analysis I saw is a LOT more than "doesn't quite follow" Benford's law. What was the R-factor, over 1.45? Crazy anomalous. I guess you would try to act like the anomaly wasn't that big, since you're trying to mislead us into thinking there was no fraud in the 1st place.

---

If you are looking at Benford's Law and not looking closely at the data to see whether Benford's Law actually applies to that data, then you cannot draw any conclusions from Benford's Law. If you are drawing conclusions from it, then you don't have the foggiest idea what you are doing.

---

If there is one thing that you are an expert on, it's not having the foggiest idea what your are doing!

96ags said:

---

eric76 said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

---

Explain why LA, NYC, Houston, Dallas, Miami, etc. had zero issues like this then? Oh wait, you can't. You're speculating and trying to excuse what happened.

---

I'm not trying to excuse anything.

Unlike you, at no time am I making the ridiculous assumption that all cities and locales necessarily behave the same, especially superficially like the so-called "analyses" above. It wouldn't be surprising if they behave similarly, but it also wouldn't be surprising if they didn't.

You mentioned Benford's Law in another post. That is another example of making assumptions. That something does not quite follow Benford's Law means little without a thorough analysis of the data to see why it differs. All it can do is draw attention to some data that should probably be checked more thoroughly -- it does not, by itself, count as evidence.

---

The data analysis I saw is a LOT more than "doesn't quite follow" Benford's law. What was the R-factor, over 1.45? Crazy anomalous. I guess you would try to act like the anomaly wasn't that big, since you're trying to mislead us into thinking there was no fraud in the 1st place.

---

If you are looking at Benford's Law and not looking closely at the data to see whether Benford's Law actually applies to that data, then you cannot draw any conclusions from Benford's Law. If you are drawing conclusions from it, then you don't have the foggiest idea what you are doing.

---

If there is one thing that you are an expert on, it's not having the foggiest idea what your are doing!

---

I guess you are the world's expert on being wrong, then.

If you are so great in math, please solve this problem:

Let x, y, and z be real numbers greater than 1. Prove that if x^y=y^z=z^x, then x=y=z.

Grab a pencil and paper and get to work. Let's see if you can even solve a problem from a test given to gifted high school students.