and she's not a regime member, guilty of wrong-think and votes the wrong way, so she'll be prosecuted harshly for exposing the absurdity of their laws.

jrdaustin said:

---

oh no said:

---

Lady got CA ballots mailed to her dog.

Dog's mailed ballot was successfully counted in a CA election (Newsom recall), but was rejected a year later in a federal election.

Newsom doesn't see the problem. Just happy a republican voting dog owner got caught due to ID

She did not "get caught". She turned herself into authorities. Her dog's mail in ballot was successfully counted in the statewide election to recall Gov. Newsom in 2021, but it was rejected in the 2022 federal primary election. Proof of ID or residence is not required in CA… https://t.co/ojOmkfNa0G

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) June 9, 2026

---

And this exposes the tragic scenario that law-abiding Californians find themselves in...

Strongly suspect voter fraud? Well, that's too bad, because you have no proof.

Ok. So in order to provide proof of the holes in the system that can easily be abused, you demonstrate how easy it is to have your dog registered to vote, and successfully have his vote counted in the election.

But when you provide this proof of concept, California prosecutes you for voter fraud.

Nice scheme they've got going there.

---

Just say you're working undercover for SPLC.

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

oh no said:

---

Lady got CA ballots mailed to her dog.

Dog's mailed ballot was successfully counted in a CA election (Newsom recall), but was rejected a year later in a federal election.

Newsom doesn't see the problem. Just happy a republican voting dog owner got caught due to ID

She did not "get caught". She turned herself into authorities. Her dog's mail in ballot was successfully counted in the statewide election to recall Gov. Newsom in 2021, but it was rejected in the 2022 federal primary election. Proof of ID or residence is not required in CA… https://t.co/ojOmkfNa0G

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) June 9, 2026

---

And this exposes the tragic scenario that law-abiding Californians find themselves in...

Strongly suspect voter fraud? Well, that's too bad, because you have no proof.

Ok. So in order to provide proof of the holes in the system that can easily be abused, you demonstrate how easy it is to have your dog registered to vote, and successfully have his vote counted in the election.

But when you provide this proof of concept, California prosecutes you for voter fraud.

Nice scheme they've got going there.

---

Just say you're working undercover for SPLC.

---

In her case, it may have been the ASPCA.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Going to have to nuke the filibuster and that's definitely a brinksmanship risk game.

---

I don't share your pessimism.

You get the GOP in line, and you can flip 4 or 5 dem senators on this issue if they are looking at a potential exit.

YouBet said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

96AgGrad said:

---

Well I guess asking for a ballot to vote by mail is exactly the same as flooding the system with them, right? Hasn't changed in a century?

---

Is it still one person having only one vote counted?

Yes, it's slow and annoying, but that doesn't mean it's cheating. Stupid. Yes. Idiotic, honestly, but not cheating.

---

Why would you think it is stupid and idiotic? I think it was designed to be slow.

---

Because there has to be a better way. With all the tech and systems in place, I can't believe mail in ballots, no matter how they get there, is the best way.

---

As a first step, they could outlaw mail-in ballots that don't arrive by Election Day. If you are too f'ing lazy to get your ballot in by then, then you shouldn't be voting in the first place. No one else on the planet lets losers submit their ballots up to 22 days after an election. That is flat out built on purpose for fraud.

Also, they apparently do not have early voting consistently implemented like Texas does.

---

SCOTUS might take care of this in Watson.

The results of this race couldn't come at a better time when it comes to SCOTUS. Hopefully there is somewhat of an uproar.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

digging tunnels said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

Trump was right... again.

Rigged election. Corrupt media.

---

"My guy didn't win, the system is rigged!"

Reminds me a lot of, "I didn't fail the test, the teacher gave me an 'F'!" No, little Tommy didn't study and guessed on every question, but, yeah, it's the teacher's fault.

---

Some first time voters can register with a gym membership or a prescription. That doesnt sound fishy at all, does it? Hmmm. What particular group of people would that help to let them vote???

---

There's always something fishy, but when "the system is rigged!" Is only ever called when one's side loses, it starts to sound a lot like the sky is falling. of loses its effect, especially over a decade and a half later.

---

Uou realize we consistently want secure elections, right? You realize these elections never fall to republicans, right? You realize this only happens in "blue" areas, right? You realize it's only statists who want this, right?

---

I see people on the left crying about rigged elections all the time going back, at least, to Gore's loss.

---

OK. And Gore literally tried to steal that election by hyper-analyzing only districts he had a chance of winning. He tried to disenfranchise Florida voters. It's what democrats always do.

Democrats favor selections, not elections.

---

Yeah, there are two types of people in this world:
1) People who know that Gore was trying to cheat;
2) People that are really bad at statistics.

yep...and Stewart Smalley successfully kept counting votes that magically appeared from storage units and closets until he took a senate seat. it is disgusting

snowminer said:

---

agent-maroon said:

---

Why are we surprised? It's not like this doesn't ever happen in other blue state elections. Obvious fraud is now just the way dems get things done

---

If the counts from vote batches were independent, identically distributed and released at a continuous rate, then we might expect a continuous trend in this plot. However, we know for a fact they are not. Votes are collected and counted by precincts, cities, and counties, each of which will have non-independent and varying distributions of votes. Small batches from small counties will give the appearance of a continuous trend, but large batches from the few large counties will always cause the appearance of a discontinuity. So the basic assumption that would allow you to claim that discontinuities in the plot are evidence of election fraud is entirely false. These jumps are nothing more than evidence that batches of vote counts are not independent and identically distributed, which we already knew.

You bandy about this thread making comments about 'statistics,' but posting this plot as evidence of election fraud without commentary at best illustrates your lack of critical thinking and your own fundamental lack of knowledge of statistics. A lot of the blame falls on the media for presenting vote counting as a horse race, but still, I would have hoped for more from someone purporting to be a physician.

---

That's a lot of words to basically say:

"I don't like that huge vertical blue line at 6:10am in your chart, so imma just going to pretend it's not there, mmmkaaayyyy".

That's very few words to say "I'd prefer to yell into the void about bunk conspiracy theories than engage in meaningful discussion about why this data looks the way it does."

But by all means, continue to degrade your credibility. If all you have to contribute is that anything more than a reactionary, surface level analysis is beyond you, then I don't really have anything more to say. Believe what you will.

Nothing to see here. Move along because the snowminers said to.

Quote:

---

Thousands of homeless voters were registered to vote at LA shelters despite many not living there or the facilities not having any beds.

And as Spencer Pratt was eliminated by Nithya Raman in the mayor's race on Monday night, it can be revealed that one drop-in center that received $600,000 from the socialist candidate had 185 registered voters at the address but offers no accommodations.

The revelations have prompted US Attorney Bill Essayli to say he will investigate the concerns uncovered by The Post and "follow the evidence" to see if the law has been broken.

Among them was St. Joseph Center in Venice, a homeless services drop-in center with 185 registered voters tied to its address. The organization received a $600,000 taxpayer-funded grant awarded by Raman while she chaired the City Council's Housing and Homelessness Committee.

Last week, The Post contacted her campaign and the center seeking comment regarding the relationship between the councilmember and the organization but has not heard back. However, a photograph showing Raman presenting a check was taken down from its website following our inquiries.

Martin Rowe, a homeless man living in Venice, told The Post he was registered to vote during an outreach effort outside a Ralphs grocery store.

"They asked you all the questions," Rowe said. "They gave you a paper."

The largest concentration of homeless voters was at the Midnight Mission in Skid Row, where voting records show 1,160 registrations but its website shows it only has beds for 84 men and 36 women.

---

California is worse than third-world ****holes in their approach to elections.

Anybody skipping over that problem to argue whatever point they want to make is not worth the time.

Well well well what do we have here- James O'Keefe reporting live from Skid Row:

And the inevitable straw man. I called out one bad argument, and now I'm suddenly responsible to defend every piece of 'evidence' you have off the cuff. What does your quote actually have to do with what I said?

I'm not telling you to ignore problems with California's voting or potential election/voter fraud. I'm telling you that if you post and support people posting misleading or straight up disinformation, then you hurt your credibility, making me less likely to bother investigating your latest claims. You may not care about that, but that's how it is.

snowminer said:

---

And the inevitable straw man. I called out one bad argument, and now I'm suddenly responsible to defend every piece of 'evidence' you have off the cuff. What does your quote actually have to do with what I said?

I'm not telling you to ignore problems with California's voting or potential election/voter fraud. I'm telling you that if you post and support people posting misleading or straight up disinformation, then you hurt your credibility, making me less likely to bother investigating your latest claims. You may not care about that, but that's how it is.

---

Well, my apologies. It's hard not to assume you are not an out of nowhere left wing troll since I don't know your username and you have a low post count. We get fly by night trolls here all the time.

I guess if you can admit there are a myriad of concerns and lack of audit control with California's voting process then welcome.

Lost Causifornia

snowminer said:

---

That's very few words to say "I'd prefer to yell into the void about bunk conspiracy theories than engage in meaningful discussion about why this data looks the way it does."

But by all means, continue to degrade your credibility. If all you have to contribute is that anything more than a reactionary, surface level analysis is beyond you, then I don't really have anything more to say. Believe what you will.

---

How about you get reactionary to Annie's chart above?

I would be really interested in your reaction.

From a statistics point of view, of course.

Fine. I'll bite.

Once again, if you assume that batch of counted votes are independent and identically distributed, then the above chart would indeed look very suspicious. But as I already detailed, each batch of counted votes are not independent and identically distributed. This is a fact.

A trend in the distribution of counted votes is not, on its own, evidence of any sort of fraud. In fact a consistent trend such as above, looks like the results stochastic dynamical system. On its own, there is nothing about this plot that is even particularly suspicious, if you have a thorough education in statistics.

Now I will introduce some conjecture about when different population groups vote, and how that might explain the trends you see in the plot above. Republicans/Conservatives were more likely to vote early because the leading Republican candidates for most races have been all but decided for quite some time, particularly the governor's race since Trump endorsed Hilton in early April, and these are the core Pratt voters. Establishment Democrats/Liberals waited later and submitted their votes as Becerra separated himself as the leading establishment candidate, and these are the core Bass voters. Left-wing/progressive voters who favor Raman over Bass, for whatever reason (likely they skew younger and are more likely to procrastinate) are likely to submit their votes even later than establishment Democrats. We can see a similar trend with Steyer receiving such late breaking votes.

So, we have three distributions (one for each significant candidate) continuous over time indicating the probability that a voter for that candidate will submit their ballot at that time. Pratt voters skew early. Bass voters skew later. Raman voters skew towards the last minute.

Now, consider the distribution of votes on each day as a distribution, continuous over time, sampling in proportion from each of these three distributions. The earliest tail of the distribution skew towards Pratt voters, hence why he took an early lead. The center of the distribution, skews towards Bass, hence why she took the lead by the end of election night or shortly thereafter. Finally, the latest tail of the distribution skews towards Raman. This is precisely the trend we see above.

So, this trend line, is easily explained by a basic, realistic stochastic dynamical system. So, on its own it is not meaningful evidence of voter/election fraud. Conversely, however, that this data can be explained is not evidence that there is no such fraud. A well executed fraud, would obviously aim to simulate reasonable dynamics. These trend lines, as evidence of fraud, are basically worthless. Worse, if there is actually fraud, the endless whinging about bunk analyses about these trend lines diminishes the credibility of real evidence of such fraud, e.g. the dog voting story or stories about homeless shelters associated with Raman having excessive voter registrations.

The Republicans need to go into somewhere like Inglewood which is 92% Democrat. Pick some obscure race and find a horrible candidate. I am not looking for them to actual run. Just agree to have their name on the ballot. Someone in an assisted living facility would do. Then mail in ballot the hell out of the race. Prove a point that their entire process is flawed.

looks like the chapgtp talking points are out.

it makes perfect sense how raman outperformed even bass but only in late mailed in ballots counted after the election. therefore, there's obviously nothing to see here and it makes perfect sense that the state should block feds from performing any kind of audit because it's clearly perfect and secure and the data raises no possible questions whatsoever.

in conclusion, registering online with gym memberships is secure. mailing out ballots to 100% of the rarely updated old registration rolls without request can't be compromised. accepting ballots without signature verification can never be invalid. see?! there you have it!! all the internal controls in the processes and systems are there! most secure election ever again!!!! #democracy

A perfect example of why I "have a low post count." Trying to have any meaningful discussion that disagrees with the group-think is immediately met with a swarm of low-effort straw man and ad hominem attacks. What does anything you have said in this post have to do with my actual analysis or the point I was responding to? I explained why this one data point does not indicate fraud, not that there is no fraud or evidence of fraud. If you want to critique what I have said, how about you do it like an adult capable of reason instead of a child. I think I've had enough. You can continue screaming into your echo chamber. Until next time.

snowminer said:

---

And the inevitable straw man. I called out one bad argument, and now I'm suddenly responsible to defend every piece of 'evidence' you have off the cuff. What does your quote actually have to do with what I said?

I'm not telling you to ignore problems with California's voting or potential election/voter fraud. I'm telling you that if you post and support people posting misleading or straight up disinformation, then you hurt your credibility, making me less likely to bother investigating your latest claims. You may not care about that, but that's how it is.

---

The problem with your original callout is that it is in itself a very likely red herring. The post is NOT disinformation. Here's why.

You make a claim that one should not expect continuous trends because all precincts are not equal. Yet that goes without saying, and is not really relevant to the issue at hand, vis-a-vis: both the graph shown by agent-maroon that you took issue with AS WELL AS the current goings-on in LA are exhibiting a systematic change in trends after a specific point in time.

In the current election, we have ONE candidate who who was originally traling by a significant margin in early voting and on election day voting, has the benefit of a paradigm shift occur after the polls have closed in which her systematic gains begin increasing at an increasing rate.

Note that I said SYSTEMATIC. Not just one precinct. Across the board.

And looking at the graph you took issue with, there was also a single point in time with a 99%-1% monster dump in a single voting dump; but, trend lines shifted after that point.

I belive those are the statistics being discussed, and the likelihood of those shifts after a specific point in time are practically nil.

Carry on.

Thanks for engaging in good faith.

My explanation of the trend line in the LA mayor's race depends upon defining the vote batches as samples of a stochastic dynamical system, so I would actual expect to see a systematic effect. Of course, if this effect is universal when sub-sampling across precincts, then that might be suspicious. But that is not the data we are looking at (at least I haven't seen this data). We are looking at the trend lines of aggregate votes. If you have some other data available that indicates this trend defies reason in some other sampling regime, then I would gladly hear you out.

I would naturally expect there to be paradigm shift in the vote distributions, because there is a paradigm shift in how the votes were cast. Given how voting by mail has been politicized of late, it is hardly surprising there is party line divide between these different voting regimes. You could certainly convince me that mail voting creates a greater risk of fraud, but a trend line like this is not meaningful evidence to me as such.

With respect to the 'monster dump,' the city of Detroit voted 95%-3% in favor of Biden. I don't think the likelihood that such a sample of an especially democrat subset (mail in votes) of such an already heavily democrat voting block would be nil. I would expect to see a large discontinuity in favor of democrats precisely when Wayne County/Detroit reported its mail ballots. It has been some time since I have thought significantly about these 2020 results. If you can recall the official explanation for the 'monster dump' I'd love to hear it, but that's my best guess. In regards to the overall trend, I would still expect a systematic trend at this point too. It is hard to tell from the plot, but maybe the data does show such a universal trend as you suggest. Certainly, a universal trend would be suspicious, but unless you can actually show me that this trend is truly universal and not just the dominant trend, I don't see this as credible evidence of fraud.

The question is why the disparate behavior amongst the democrat voters. The patterns are already know- Republicans vote early/on election day, democrats vote on election day/mail in votes hence why the graphs predictably show such large gain made by democrats post election day.

The problem here, imo, is the massive gains made by Raman, who was polling in third place. Why did her and bass vote totals come in so differently. There is no evidence, so far as I'm aware, of Raman having some great ground game or even significant name recognition. In fact, the most pub she got was being eviscerated by Pratt during the debate.

Heres what we do know-

1. California takes ballot postmarked up to an on election day
2. They take practically any sort of identification to register voters.
3. The send all voters a mail in ballot automatically
4. Thousands of homeless people were registered to vote and their addresses were listed at short term shelters, ngos, govt buildings, etc.
5. Presumably, all of those ballots were mailed out
6. Cali has no limit on ballot harvesting
7. We also know at least some homeless people were paid to vote with money, cigarettes or alcohol
8. California does clean their rolls, doesn't allow audits, actively fights the feds on such issues
9. Newsome said they'd "break the glass" in order to keep democrats in power.

I think they're was probably little "cheating" because the cheating has been institutionalized and/or made legal. The ends justify the means, am I right?

But to say it's normal or right, or that mail in voting is in any way good or productive is asinine

Who?mikejones! said:

---

The question is why the disparate behavior amongst the democrat voters. The patterns are already know- Republicans vote early/on election day, democrats vote on election day/mail in votes hence why the graphs predictably show such large gain made by democrats post election day.

The problem here, imo, is the massive gains made by Raman, who was polling in third place. Why did her and bass vote totals come in so differently. There is no evidence, so far as I'm aware, of Raman having some great ground game or even significant name recognition. In fact, the most pub she got was being eviscerated by Pratt during the debate.

Heres what we do know-

1. California takes ballot postmarked up to an on election day
2. They take practically any sort of identification to register voters.
3. The send all voters a mail in ballot automatically
4. Thousands of homeless people were registered to vote and their addresses were listed at short term shelters, ngos, govt buildings, etc.
5. Presumably, all of those ballots were mailed out
6. Cali has no limit on ballot harvesting
7. We also know at least some homeless people were paid to vote with money, cigarettes or alcohol
8. California does clean their rolls, doesn't allow audits, actively fights the feds on such issues
9. Newsome said they'd "break the glass" in order to keep democrats in power.

I think they're was probably little "cheating" because the cheating has been institutionalized and/or made legal. The ends justify the means, am I right?

But to say it's normal or right, or that mail in voting is in any way good or productive is asinine

---

The homeless - mentally disturbed, illiterate, incapacitated, what have you* - are really insignificant compared to illegal aliens. California has the most illegal aliens of any state with estimates of all most one quarter of all illegal aliens nationwide. All can obtain drivers licenses. And all were offered Medi-Cal until the beginning of this year.

And, in addition to taking practically anything to register to vote, you don't need an ID to vote.


*I can find some wasted addict, somebody who can't even read and they can simply make a mark on the ballot and I can witness for them. I can witness for any number of people.

Edit: It is a corrupt system deliberately set up for democrats to maintain power and continue their fraudulent gravy train. It's like the purposeful deluge of illegal aliens under Biden. Remember how they said they couldn't do anything about the stampede then Trump took office and it immediately came to an end? That's California's rotten elections system. It could be easily fixed, but it serves a purpose.

snowminer said:

---

You bandy about this thread making comments about 'statistics,' but posting this plot as evidence of election fraud without commentary at best illustrates your lack of critical thinking and your own fundamental lack of knowledge of statistics. A lot of the blame falls on the media for presenting vote counting as a horse race, but still, I would have hoped for more from someone purporting to be a physician.

---

Says the guy who complains about the board dishing out ad homs, not engaging in good faith, etc.

snowminer said:

---

Thanks for engaging in good faith.

---

This was in your original post on this thread and a response to my OP:

Quote:

---

You bandy about this thread making comments about 'statistics,' but posting this plot as evidence of election fraud without commentary at best illustrates your lack of critical thinking and your own fundamental lack of knowledge of statistics. A lot of the blame falls on the media for presenting vote counting as a horse race, but still, I would have hoped for more from someone purporting to be a physician.

---

Just catching up to the replies on this thread. Please tell me more about "engaging in good faith". I was an engineer before I was an physician. Want to take an objective position on that occupation, too?

ETA - bobranco beat me to my own point

Polls are polls, and they are not elections. But a good portion of polling up to election day did not paint a favorable picture for Raman. It pretty much pointed to her being a distant third place behind Pratt.

Cygnal-LA-Mayor-Poll-1.pdf https://www.cygn.al/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Cygnal-LA-Mayor-Poll-1.pdf

There is a lot to unpack in this polling data, but the fact that Raman suddenly gained momentum while Bass and Pratt stayed flat when all the mail-in votes rolled in should raise eyebrows of everyone. Anyone who tries to explain it away is either a schill or stupid.

Theres at least 43000 homeless in la that could be a massive voting block if employed correctly

Yeah, I hoped an educated professional to have a more nuanced take than claiming that a discontinuity in that plot is good evidence to make an accusation of fraud without ever exploring why that might not be the case, or providing any argument why they believe that to be the case. Especially after they've been claiming anyone who disagrees with their analysis doesn't have any knowledge of statistics. I've explained why I think discontinuities in that plot are not only not suspicious, but are actually expected. If you think that I am wrong, I'd love to know why. What have I missed in that plot that you think is evidence of fraud?

Hey there smart guy. How about you play Devils advocate for a try. What would the situations have to be like for a plot line like the above to be good evidence of fraud?

snowminer said:

---

Yeah, I hoped an educated professional to have a more nuanced take than claiming that a discontinuity in that plot is good evidence to make an accusation of fraud without ever exploring why that might not be the case, or providing any argument why they believe that to be the case. Especially after they've been claiming anyone who disagrees with their analysis doesn't have any knowledge of statistics. I've explained why I think discontinuities in that plot are not only not suspicious, but are actually expected. If you think that I am wrong, I'd love to know why. What have I missed in that plot that you think is evidence of fraud?

---

OK let's just dispense with your "discussing in good faith" BS. You can shove that patronizing crap right where you're riding on your high horse talking down to people.

See the bolded portion up above? I never claimed anything of the sort. Maybe you mixed me up with someone else in the army of people who disagree with your lame rationalizations, but that wasn't me.

"Discontinuities" are not only not suspicious, but are to be expected? lol Show me where they have occurred in any election where it didn't benefit a weak democrat candidate.

Video reportedly shows Los Angeles election petitioners providing homeless individuals with other voters’ personal information, instructing them to forge names and signatures, and allegedly offering cash and drugs in exchange for voter registrations. pic.twitter.com/H1eFYplvwd

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 9, 2026

agent-maroon said:

---

snowminer said:

---

Yeah, I hoped an educated professional to have a more nuanced take than claiming that a discontinuity in that plot is good evidence to make an accusation of fraud without ever exploring why that might not be the case, or providing any argument why they believe that to be the case. Especially after they've been claiming anyone who disagrees with their analysis doesn't have any knowledge of statistics. I've explained why I think discontinuities in that plot are not only not suspicious, but are actually expected. If you think that I am wrong, I'd love to know why. What have I missed in that plot that you think is evidence of fraud?

---

OK let's just dispense with your "discussing in good faith" BS. You can shove that patronizing crap right where you're riding on your high horse talking down to people.

See the bolded portion up above? I never claimed anything of the sort. Maybe you mixed me up with someone else in the army of people who disagree with your lame rationalizations, but that wasn't me.

---

Yeah, let's.

This isn't you?

agent-maroon said:

---

"Evidence"... sigh...

Would be curious to know what degree majors offered at A&M do not include enough exposure to basic statistical concepts that the LA mayor's race fraud doesn't appear to be glaringly obvious? This has to be flat-earth level willful denial, right?

---

Not you either?

agent-maroon said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

Trump was right... again.

Rigged election. Corrupt media.

---

"My guy didn't win, the system is rigged!"

Reminds me a lot of, "I didn't fail the test, the teacher gave me an 'F'!" No, little Tommy didn't study and guessed on every question, but, yeah, it's the teacher's fault.

---

Was Tommy taking a Statistics class?

---

I didn't mix you up with anybody else.

agent-maroon said:

---

"Discontinuities" are not only not suspicious, but are to be expected? lol Show me where they have occurred in any election where it didn't benefit a weak democrat candidate.

---

So you won't explain why you think my explanation is wrong? I can only assume that you can't. "lol no u" is quite a pathetic argument. There is a similar jump that heavily favors Trump at 9PM in the very same plot, along with a myriad of other jumps for both candidates. I explained in my original post and subsequently, in detail, why we should expect these sorts of apparent discontinuities. Your feelings and anecdotes about how things should be are not credible evidence of election fraud. If you can't defend them, then maybe you should keep "your lame rationalizations" to yourself.