His last line about this journey just beginning shouldn't be taken for granted. The Biden administration is walking into a raging pandemic and economic disaster. The wealth gap that has been such a significant contributor to fueling anti-elite populism is getting worse and is about to get much worse. The Biden administration isn't going to fix all this, so the anger and frustration fueling this populism isn't likely to just dissipate. If Trump is eligible to run again after the 20th, I suspect that day is when his campaign is announced. Even if it's not Trump, there will be others. Him being deplatformed by social media will reduce his influence, but the sentiments of anger and frustration aren't going to disappear while the wealth gap expands and the economy continues to hobble along for the working classes. There are underlying reasons why he has been able to be so influential and there are still massive numbers of people who believe they're getting screwed by those they view as the elites.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
I have a bold prediction. They'll stick around for a few comments, get destroyed on facts, then leave (never to return) because we're all stupid, hopeless and in a 'lib' bubble.
But ones a data analyst who knows about standard deviation.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
And here I thought I'd stop hearing about Benford's Law
But thanks for posting the videos Stand-up Maths videos, he does a good job.
Mick West also has one about the scatter plot that I like, but I just found this one where he takes videos off the GA election website to show that the flood did in fact happen and that the "hidden suitcases of ballots" wasn't fraud and the suitcases were loaded there a few hours earlier in view of the video and present media and observers.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
If you included the next paragraph, haven't read that article in a while, but it does however say much more than that. The article itself hinges on the arguments made further down. The primary being a disgrace to mathematics. The sources, and wait for it, you are gonna love it, use the fact that the Iranian election doesn't work.
lmao. So yeah, this "fact check" determined the Benfords Law to be inaccurate citing the disparity in the Iranian election. I think that should be further proof, what's it gonna say next, that Benford's Law is invalid because it doesn't work in China or Russia either, Lol.
However, the core of the argument is correct. The Law doesn't prove Fraud, and if you go back to the comment that I was defending, I wasn't trying to prove beyond doubt that fraud happened. In response to the comment I was saying there should be some actual hearings, election reform, I actually really liked the idea proposed by Cruz to have an election commitee on how to fix this problem and increase faith in the American election. Whether you look at the data or not, nearly half, 39% of the US believes the election was unfair.
The article you used says that it is a red flag. And that's what the post I was defending commented, and Benford's law does essentially scream out that there should be some looking into this election.
In short, on that specific law, it can only ever be used to spot fraud, never to prove, and it does not explain anything about it. Even if the results were clearly fabricated in the analysis of the Law it would not be enough to overturn an election, it is simply a probability.
After the Benfords Law maths came out briefly after the election, that is when other people on either side started to say one of two things:
1. It doesn't apply to elections, which is wrong;
2. It proves fraud and Joe Biden cheated, which is wrong.
The statistics I have done include looking at the data from the election come from looking at the actual standard deviations of voter turnout and voter disparity. There is little point going into it though, for reasons I have already stated. The trump legal team released their numbers, on the standard deviation of similar things and we do not have identical numbers. So, to add to the comment above that posted a few links, I haven't just found these answers online and are trying to argue for them. It is my own math using the data available from the SOS pages. I haven't watched them, but I doubt they are on the work I did a couple months ago.
So I will try and make it clear, the math is only going to give you a probability of a fair election. In order to actually do anything, there is going to have to proof. I have my own theories, and I do believe that the numbers support it, but that is all it is. My own theory based on numbers.
I consider this a pretty reasonable response.
Admittimably, I did not do Benford's law myself, I heard a couple of reports and that is when it peaked my interest. I thought that all claims of voter fraud were speculation until some of the maths started to come out, which in turn encouraged me to do my own.
Nah, just personal stuff. I would love it if Trump's lawyers released his stats to compare it to mine. They obviously have much more data (and time) than I do.
Their work would be a lot more formal than mine as well. For the voter turnout I didn't bother to do a full analysis, I actually just took a linear approximation just to save time. I figured if the odds of it happening are .01% compared to .00001% it wouldn't make much of a practical difference.
Last edited by Abatedmean; 01-07-2021 at 08:43 PM.
Nah, just personal stuff. I would love it if Trump's lawyers released his stats to compare it to mine. They obviously have much more data (and time) than I do.
So you believe you have evidence of the largest electoral fraud ever. Statistical evidence that is robust enough to withstand scrutiny when reviewed by other statisticians and mathematicians and you are doing nothing with it?
At a minimum you have a moral duty to publicize the evidence.
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
The Benford's law thing is pretty simple really, in the cases I saw presented about the election the data set simply wasn't appropriate to use it with. You need a couple of orders of magnitude in the data, and if all your precincts are about the same size and all the votes are in the same range then Benford's law simply doesn't work.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
However, the core of the argument is correct. The Law doesn't prove Fraud, and if you go back to the comment that I was defending, I wasn't trying to prove beyond doubt that fraud happened. In response to the comment I was saying there should be some actual hearings, election reform, I actually really liked the idea proposed by Cruz to have an election commitee on how to fix this problem and increase faith in the American election. Whether you look at the data or not, nearly half, 39% of the US believes the election was unfair.
I have a good idea on how to restore faith in their elections:
Stop lying, stop spreading conspiracy theories. There's one party, and one president, that is doing it much much more than the other party. That 39% seems eerily similar to a lot of other polls we've seen over the past 4 years or so.
The Following User Says Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
If you included the next paragraph, haven't read that article in a while, but it does however say much more than that. The article itself hinges on the arguments made further down. The primary being a disgrace to mathematics. The sources, and wait for it, you are gonna love it, use the fact that the Iranian election doesn't work.
lmao. So yeah, this "fact check" determined the Benfords Law to be inaccurate citing the disparity in the Iranian election. I think that should be further proof, what's it gonna say next, that Benford's Law is invalid because it doesn't work in China or Russia either, Lol.
However, the core of the argument is correct. The Law doesn't prove Fraud, and if you go back to the comment that I was defending, I wasn't trying to prove beyond doubt that fraud happened. In response to the comment I was saying there should be some actual hearings, election reform, I actually really liked the idea proposed by Cruz to have an election commitee on how to fix this problem and increase faith in the American election. Whether you look at the data or not, nearly half, 39% of the US believes the election was unfair.
The article you used says that it is a red flag. And that's what the post I was defending commented, and Benford's law does essentially scream out that there should be some looking into this election.
In short, on that specific law, it can only ever be used to spot fraud, never to prove, and it does not explain anything about it. Even if the results were clearly fabricated in the analysis of the Law it would not be enough to overturn an election, it is simply a probability.
After the Benfords Law maths came out briefly after the election, that is when other people on either side started to say one of two things:
1. It doesn't apply to elections, which is wrong;
2. It proves fraud and Joe Biden cheated, which is wrong.
The statistics I have done include looking at the data from the election come from looking at the actual standard deviations of voter turnout and voter disparity. There is little point going into it though, for reasons I have already stated. The trump legal team released their numbers, on the standard deviation of similar things and we do not have identical numbers. So, to add to the comment above that posted a few links, I haven't just found these answers online and are trying to argue for them. It is my own math using the data available from the SOS pages. I haven't watched them, but I doubt they are on the work I did a couple months ago.
So I will try and make it clear, the math is only going to give you a probability of a fair election. In order to actually do anything, there is going to have to proof. I have my own theories, and I do believe that the numbers support it, but that is all it is. My own theory based on numbers.
I consider this a pretty reasonable response.
Admittimably, I did not do Benford's law myself, I heard a couple of reports and that is when it peaked my interest. I thought that all claims of voter fraud were speculation until some of the maths started to come out, which in turn encouraged me to do my own.
Do you think that the fact that Trump's vote went up by 16.2% in Philadelphia and by 22% as a total vote in Philadelphia compared to the GOP's best result ever is proof of fraud? This improvement far outstrips their growth in traditional republican areas. I personally just think that it was a very engaged electorate and that there was zero fraud or abnormalities but I am trying to follow your numberless analysis.
Last edited by Aarongavey; 01-07-2021 at 08:51 PM.
So you believe you have evidence of the largest electoral fraud ever. Statistical evidence that is robust enough to withstand scrutiny when reviewed by other statisticians and mathematicians and you are doing nothing with it?
At a minimum you have a moral duty to publicize the evidence.
Trump a month or so ago said I think almost accidentally, a probability only 100 times more than mine. So like I said above, a lot of my work is an approximation to save time. I purposely looked for the easier to calculate even if it meant that the probabilities would be more probable.
If Trump's numbers were massively different that would raise an eyebrow.
Additionally, I'm Canadian that has always excelled in math. I just want to live in my house with my dog and not be bothered by the media lmao. The world is so divided I have been thinking of full-out deleting social media once hockey starts.
Oh well, laptop is dead and I got some work to do. Ill check in when I have some time in the coming days when I got time. The flames next scrim is on Monday? So maybe then Lol
If you included the next paragraph, haven't read that article in a while, but it does however say much more than that. The article itself hinges on the arguments made further down. The primary being a disgrace to mathematics. The sources, and wait for it, you are gonna love it, use the fact that the Iranian election doesn't work.
lmao. So yeah, this "fact check" determined the Benfords Law to be inaccurate citing the disparity in the Iranian election. I think that should be further proof, what's it gonna say next, that Benford's Law is invalid because it doesn't work in China or Russia either, Lol.
However, the core of the argument is correct. The Law doesn't prove Fraud, and if you go back to the comment that I was defending, I wasn't trying to prove beyond doubt that fraud happened. In response to the comment I was saying there should be some actual hearings, election reform, I actually really liked the idea proposed by Cruz to have an election commitee on how to fix this problem and increase faith in the American election. Whether you look at the data or not, nearly half, 39% of the US believes the election was unfair.
The article you used says that it is a red flag. And that's what the post I was defending commented, and Benford's law does essentially scream out that there should be some looking into this election.
In short, on that specific law, it can only ever be used to spot fraud, never to prove, and it does not explain anything about it. Even if the results were clearly fabricated in the analysis of the Law it would not be enough to overturn an election, it is simply a probability.
After the Benfords Law maths came out briefly after the election, that is when other people on either side started to say one of two things:
1. It doesn't apply to elections, which is wrong;
2. It proves fraud and Joe Biden cheated, which is wrong.
The statistics I have done include looking at the data from the election come from looking at the actual standard deviations of voter turnout and voter disparity. There is little point going into it though, for reasons I have already stated. The trump legal team released their numbers, on the standard deviation of similar things and we do not have identical numbers. So, to add to the comment above that posted a few links, I haven't just found these answers online and are trying to argue for them. It is my own math using the data available from the SOS pages. I haven't watched them, but I doubt they are on the work I did a couple months ago.
So I will try and make it clear, the math is only going to give you a probability of a fair election. In order to actually do anything, there is going to have to proof. I have my own theories, and I do believe that the numbers support it, but that is all it is. My own theory based on numbers.
I consider this a pretty reasonable response.
Admittimably, I did not do Benford's law myself, I heard a couple of reports and that is when it peaked my interest. I thought that all claims of voter fraud were speculation until some of the maths started to come out, which in turn encouraged me to do my own.
Trump a month or so ago said I think almost accidentally, a probability only 100 times more than mine. So like I said above, a lot of my work is an approximation to save time. I purposely looked for the easier to calculate even if it meant that the probabilities would be more probable.
If Trump's numbers were massively different that would raise an eyebrow.
Additionally, I'm Canadian that has always excelled in math. I just want to live in my house with my dog and not be bothered by the media lmao. The world is so divided I have been thinking of full-out deleting social media once hockey starts.
Oh well, laptop is dead and I got some work to do. Ill check in when I have some time in the coming days when I got time. The flames next scrim is on Monday? So maybe then Lol
So you are saying you did a real ####ty job at the math and proved what you thought you would find and refuse to share it with anyone for any kind of review and everyone should just look for their own evidence. Why would anyone take anything you say with any value.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
