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

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by TheChief

No one had the balls to properly investigate the claim of election fraud...There are too many big players at play as it has been made clear to see.


80 Million votes for Biden


The biggest tragedy in all of this is the killing of the unarmed protester by the secret service. How little airplay that is getting.

Its hard to argue with a smart person...impossible to argue with a stupid one

terrorist not protester...one room away from the VP of the united states and trying to get in said room

[dino7c]

So about that 300+M Trump raised off idiots (couple in this thread)

He spent what 8M on failed lawsuits and pocketed the rest...there is your election fraud and I told you so


As for the votes
record voter turnout and very little third party support because Trump is a ####ing idiot.

Trump won ONE demographic

uneducated white males, go figure

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Abatedmean

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.

So we've moved well beyond dead people voting/people voting twice/illegals voting/etc and now are onto some nefarious single source feeding manufactured precinct data to election offices and not doing a very good job of randomizing it?

[edslunch]

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.

That would be interesting, thanks. Make a post or two laying it out for us.

[blender]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

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.

My first post here since yesterday is to quote this for truth.
Well said.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Abatedmean

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

This post...is.... amazing

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by blender

My first post here since yesterday is to quote this for truth.
Well said.

Yes JohnnyB is right

Fortunately, Biden actually has House and Senate. Mitch can’t stall and block, so Biden could actually get something done, if the Dems really intend to

Didn’t his platform involve providing funding for all states to have sustainable energy generation and infrastructure?

America has been heading this way under both parties for decades. Offshoring manufacturing and enriching corporations, exacerbating the wealth divide
The populist rhetoric creates the boogey man out of immigrants, while an actual culprit is offshoring.

They need to create real jobs, because there isn’t a story the Dems can tell that will resonate with the disenfranchised. Trump played that card so it has to be something tangible

I think there are some Democrats that get it. They need to get a lot of stuff done in the next two years, it’s the only chance to right the ship

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

This post...is.... amazing

That first paragraph is god damn word salad

I am not sure why that idiot thinks this is the place where you can plant a conspiracy theory and expect it to grow. I appreciate that most people come here for reasonably good faith dialogue , are willing to use critical thinking, and are willing to support their assertions when challenged

####ing probabilities more probable? What the heck?

To quote John Shaft:
“Deal’em up straight or don’t deal’em at all”

[dino7c]

Its weird that Trump hasn't said anything about the 300+ million dollars that his supporters donated so he could overturn the election. Last count he had spent $8M on losing in court.

Wonder if he is giving it back now?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by ignite09

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

and he's even more incomprehensible on line than in real life!!!

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Abatedmean

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

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'

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

He was looking for the Conservative Politicians message board, but messed up.

I’m thinking a different kind of CP is Rudy’s thing.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by photon

https://twitter.com/user/status/1347245348079562753

Oh Kevin...

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Abatedmean

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.

They also point out why it doesn't apply in many US examples because of the relatively small size of precincts and wards. They use Milwaukee, which is a good example. It had 324 wards with total vote totals ranging from 5 votes to 2,541 votes. Biden's average share there was about 80% (ranging from 40% to 97%), with a median of 81.5%. If you apply the median vote share to the different ward sizes, you would expect the leading digit of Biden's votes to be 1 in only the following situations:

-total votes between 13 and 24
-total votes between 123 and 244
-total votes between 1,227 and 2,453

Of the 324 wards, only 48 (14.8%) would meet that criteria, well below the 30% or so that would be expected from Benford's law. Because the vast majority (73%) of the ward vote totals fall between 350 and 1,100 (from which virtually none of Biden's vote totals would have a leading digit of 1 given his general vote share in the city), it would be completely illogical to expect the data to follow Benford's law. Based on the ward sizes and how popular Democratic candidates tend to be in the city, you'd expect the highest number of leading digits to be 5, 4, 1, and 6 in that order. And what was the order of most numerous leading digits in Biden's actual vote total? Surprise, surprise, it was 5, 4, 1, and 6 in that order.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I’m thinking a different kind of CP is Rudy’s thing.

Cousin Porn?

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Cousin Porn?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Abatedmean

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..

People I would probably respectfully listen to about mathematics and statistics:

- statisticians
- mathematicians
- theoretical physicists
- financial analysts
- data scientists

People I do not listen to about mathematics and statistics:

- random internet guy claiming he is smarter than all of the above

[SportsJunky]

Yeah but this guy says he's really good at the maths.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by opendoor

They also point out why it doesn't apply in many US examples because of the relatively small size of precincts and wards. They use Milwaukee, which is a good example. It had 324 wards with total vote totals ranging from 5 votes to 2,541 votes. Biden's average share there was about 80% (ranging from 40% to 97%), with a median of 81.5%. If you apply the median vote share to the different ward sizes, you would expect the leading digit of Biden's votes to be 1 in only the following situations:

-total votes between 13 and 24
-total votes between 123 and 244
-total votes between 1,227 and 2,453

Of the 324 wards, only 48 (14.8%) would meet that criteria, well below the 30% or so that would be expected from Benford's law. Because the vast majority (73%) of the ward vote totals fall between 350 and 1,100 (from which virtually none of Biden's vote totals would have a leading digit of 1 given his general vote share in the city), it would be completely illogical to expect the data to follow Benford's law. Based on the ward sizes and how popular Democratic candidates tend to be in the city, you'd expect the highest number of leading digits to be 5, 4, 1, and 6 in that order. And what was the order of most numerous leading digits in Biden's actual vote total? Surprise, surprise, it was 5, 4, 1, and 6 in that order.

I have no idea what you are saying. Therefore, I must conclude that the election is a fraud and I must resist!

[djsFlames]

Obligatory