[GT] US election - It's 2020, what could possibly go wrong?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by ignite09

Holy ####, Rudy Giuliani has a CP account.

Wasn’t there a recent post about people’s accounts getting hacked?

Russia Today has come for CP

[PepsiFree]

If there’s one thing I find incredible about CP. it’s that we have the world’s best mathematicians, lawyers, political scientists, virologists, climatologists, and sociologists, to name just a few.

And what do they do? Why, instead of sharing this wealth of knowledge and their savant like ability to understand, analyse, and interpret complex information and systems and share it with the world, making considerably large sums of money as they apply it to a related career path, they choose instead to work menial jobs and share their expertise on CalgaryPuck.

So lucky are we.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If there’s one thing I find incredible about CP. it’s that we have the world’s best mathematicians, lawyers, political scientists, virologists, climatologists, and sociologists, to name just a few.

And what do they do? Why, instead of sharing this wealth of knowledge and their savant like ability to understand, analyse, and interpret complex information and systems and share it with the world, making considerably large sums of money as they apply it to a related career path, they choose instead to work menial jobs and share their expertise on CalgaryPuck.

So lucky are we.

All your knowledge base are belong to us.

[djsFlames]

"How probable would you like your probabilities sir?"

"The most."

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Abatedmean

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.

A little late to this party but your claims intrigue me. I just have a few questions.

First, about your understanding of statistics and data analysis. What is your specific training in such analysis? To what level did you train in understanding statistics and data analytics? Where did you get your data and what tools did you use to conduct your data analysis?

Secondly, some of your claims are about irregularities in the data acquisition and processing procedures. Did YOU take into account the differences between states and the rules they put into play in regards to data collection and tabulation? The processes were very different from state-to-state so no consistent methodology could applied here to determine if data was acquired in a consistent and reliable manner. Did you predict this and how did it impact your model?

Finally, because of the variation in data collection and the release of data, how did you determine your model to be superior and more accurate than those of the actual bodies who had access to the ballots and had the ability to validate said data? Based on recount data did the final vote tallies remain consistent in your model, or did things change?

The thing that jumps out to me was your reference to the variance in numbers in Pennsylvania after 3:42 AM, like this is your smoking gun of voter fraud. I want to be sure that YOU understood the process of vote tabulation and why numbers would change after that time, which I have a feeling you likely don't?

Each state had different rules for handling and tabulating votes. For example, in Arizona early voting was allowed and mail-in ballots were encouraged. The variance in how you could handle a ballot there was great, even allowing you to drop your mail-in ballot off at a polling station the day of the election. Mail-in ballots were processed and counted as soon as they came in, so the data was available much earlier. Conversely, Pennsylvania was handled very differently. They had very different rules for mail-in ballots and those ballots were held back for counting until the evening of the election. So while Arizona's systems were setup to have those mail-in ballots (the majority of the ballots) counted prior to the polls closing, Pennsylvania could not even begin the process of ballot validation until the polls had officially closed. So the process greatly impacted the flow of data into the system.

Now, to the issue of the variance in data after 3:42 AM. I thought this was pretty easy to follow and was very predictable. Data collection and validation from small populations is easier and quicker than large populations. The rural vote, were a precinct may handle a couple hundred to a could thousand votes is reported quicker than the urban vote, where tens of thousands of people may use the same polling place. Urban centers take longer to count ballots because of the number of ballot coming in. This is consistent across all elections, and is why data can see massive spikes as tranches of votes are reported from urban precincts. For Pennsylvania the biggest factor in these spikes was the mail-in vote, which could not begin to be counted until the ballots were opened and the signatures validated. This is a painstaking process and takes time, so it was predicted we would not see data from the mail-in ballots until the next day, which is exactly what the data displayed.

So as a "data scientist" did you take into consideration the variance in data acquisition and understand how that would impact the flow of data to your model? Did you bother to understand the rules in play and how specific processes and behaviors from state-to-state would completely change how a model would perform? Most importantly, did you go back to the recounts and see if the outcomes were consistent?

I look forward to your explanations about your model and the variations you saw, and then if you did any normalizations to handle these variations or even took them into account as you built your model?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Abatedmean

Hey, perhaps you should take a look at some data. I can help you with that. Data analyst.

I can bring you through everything as simple as you possibly need. Just in case your arrogance is because of your intellectual capacity or out of lack of research.

But yes, if you take the time to look at the statistical data, proven through multiple different methods, you would see, through no other speculation, that the numbers that have been certified are mathematically impossible and in other cases mathematically improbable to degrees your brain couldn't comprehend.

edit: you can't cure stupid, and you can only bring a horse to water. You can not make it drink. You may support an illigitiment president, however I will not have my name go down supporting what is, in essence, a dictator by definition.

If you want to take a look, do it yourself, compare the standard deviation of voting turnout in PA as an example, compare it to the past 5 elections just to save time. Do it yourself. Let me know your results. If you want something else, once again compare the voter disparity in votes after precisely 3:42am. Let me know the probability.

I love this post and reply to me I recived last night.

-User offers to bring me everything I need.
-Other users post "ok show us the math"
-User claims "no its much better you learn on your own"

So no, either live up to what you originally said, or admit perhaps, just perhaps, you are a notch dummer than you thought?

Guess what, I am also pretty good at math, but I am not so arrogant to admit I get things wrong (my writing also sucks as you can see)

In this case, all the experts agree with me (as shown by the lawsuits, and the different videos in this post, and head over to 538). I have yet to see a shred of math based evidence, in an excel sheet, that says the election was incorrect

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Cliff probably thinks he's drawing some kind of clever parallel between this and the aftermath of the Beer Hall Putsch that the rest of us are too simple to get.

I don’t offer any opinions that aren’t expressed already in mainstream media sites. The only people who would find my comments at all unusual are those who get their news from twitter.

[Regulator75]

wrong thread

[Mull]

edit: user deleted their post

[transplant99]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1347542261932945408

[devo22]

lol. Who knew actions could have consequences, right?

hope it's just the beginning.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by devo22

lol. Who knew actions could have consequences, right?

hope it's just the beginning.

Its funny/sad - private companies protecting themselves via lawsuits may have a larger impact on preventing this type of thing from occurring again then the American law makers themselves.

[transplant99]

[Leeman4Gilmour]

$1.3 B ....That is really awesome.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Spoiler!

Ha ha, Trump not cut, running and burning those who support him? Trump actually supporting those whom he pushed to the edge to do his dirty work?

Funny joke indeed!

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Abatedmean

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.

Sorry, this statement is just so...stupid. If Trump and his team have all this data as you suggest, why in the world are they not presenting it as part of their evidence? Like what possible benefit is it to them to withhold it and look like idiots without evidence? His supreme court cronies were practically begging his side to present even a shred of evidence so they could help him.

Must be some crazy 4D chess move he's doing?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

100 more than yours or 100 times more than yours? as one might not be a lot but the other is always a lot and would never be described as 'only'

When you’re at 4 quadrillion to 1 a couple zeros either way are just round off.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Trump says he will not attend Biden's inauguration.

Shocking, I know.

He is the biggest baby and coward on the planet. A pathetic human being.

[TorqueDog]

Last three pages, you’re all arguing with an unnecessarily verbose, grammatically-challenged, feigned math savant version of BoLevi... why are you all doing this? If you wanted a chat on this sort of intellectual level, don’t you have some free walls in your house to banter with? Maybe strike up a casual chat with the dog while it’s taking a sh-t? Surely there’s more insight to be gleaned from those interactions than this one.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Worst I’ve ever seen, and I say that confidently.

Originally Posted by Abatedmean

Hey, perhaps you should take a look at some data. I can help you with that. Data analyst.

I can bring you through everything as simple as you possibly need. Just in case your arrogance is because of your intellectual capacity or out of lack of research.

But yes, if you take the time to look at the statistical data, proven through multiple different methods, you would see, through no other speculation, that the numbers that have been certified are mathematically impossible and in other cases mathematically improbable to degrees your brain couldn't comprehend.

edit: you can't cure stupid, and you can only bring a horse to water. You can not make it drink. You may support an illigitiment president, however I will not have my name go down supporting what is, in essence, a dictator by definition.

If you want to take a look, do it yourself, compare the standard deviation of voting turnout in PA as an example, compare it to the past 5 elections just to save time. Do it yourself. Let me know your results. If you want something else, once again compare the voter disparity in votes after precisely 3:42am. Let me know the probability.

I can’t believe this happened just two posts later... I should keep my mouth shut.