If you find the average voter turnout for previous elections and then go back and find out the average amount each election deviated from that average, you get a standard deviation. Normally, you would never see a value that went past 3 standard deviations, as there is only a 2.5% chance of that happening. 2020 turnout for Wisconsin was 5.5 standard deviations above the average voter turnout of previous elections. To put that into perspective, a standard deviation above 5 has a 0.00006% chance of happening.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
So you're saying there's a chance
Hey, what's about all that talk about me being one in a million!
Learned this in statistics. Way more intuitive than algebra and has actual real life use cases.
1-in-1,754,000 chance to be exact.
Math is hard.
It's actually pretty simple once you learn about it.
Let's say you have the following dataset:
10, 13, 9, 16, 6, and 12
You add them all up and divide by 6 to get the average which is 66/6 = 11
To find out the standard deviation, you need to go through each number in the dataset and list how far they are away from the average:
1, 2, 2, 5, 5, 1
Then you find the average of those numbers which is 16/6 = 2.67
So if our average 11 and standard deviation is 2.67, then any number between 11-2.67 and 11+2.67 is within 1 standard deviation. Between 11 plus/minus (2.67*2) is 2 standard deviations.
Now imagine a number that is 5.5 standard deviations above the the average. It would be 11+(2.67*5.5) which is 25.68. That is a highly unlikely number given the other numbers in the data set.
Nate Silver probably calculated X voter turnout = win. Then some dimwit dems cooked the ballots to X...
Little did Nate Silver realize the probability of X voter turnout is essentially 0.
This is what happens when you over-index on a data scientist/statistician to solve real world problems
I'm sure Nate used XGBoost, maybe stack it with CatBoost... ran some Monte Carlo after his unsupervised ML model was trained to generate the [unrealistic] predicted value(s).
AnalyticsFail
The Dems math requires Meth.
And the democrats just thought they'd add a keleven and be home by seven! Ha, idiots!
But seriously, this fraud will be proven in the courts by a lot of math and statistics.
And who said there's no practical application for pure mathematics!
There is Undeniable Mathematical Evidence the Election is Being Stolen:
https://theredelephants.com/there-is-undeniable-mathematical-evidence-the-election-is-being-stolen/
Biden data doesn't fit Benford law:
https://thedonald.win/p/11PpFtEjwI/bidens-vote-tallies-violate-benf/c/
https://mobile.twitter.com/statsguyphd/status/1324352213595181059
https://mobile.twitter.com/toad_spotted/status/1324377988499210240
Archive everything peds
Use archive.is
There is Undeniable Mathematical Evidence the Election is Being Stolen:
https://theredelephants.com/there-is-undeniable-mathematical-evidence-the-election-is-being-stolen/
Archived: https://archive.is/wWe2W
I just can't take this mail in ballot thing seriously at all because no one I know under the age of 30 even knows how to send a physical letter.
IIRC the Wisconsin turnout figures are false and based on a miscalculation.
The 90% figure is the number of registered voters who voted. Turnout is typically calculated on the number of eligible voters.
The turnout is higher than in western countries that have mandatory voting laws.
I should have paid more fucking attention in Advanced Algebra...It just didn't seem like I would EVER need that shit....🤔🇺🇸
This whole fraud will be proven and undone by math. Que the whole "mAtH iS rAcIsT!" talking points in the next few days.
You're right BUT this last year has undoubtedly increased turnout. Very likely not this level of extra turnout but it's pretty obvious there's good reason for extra turnout this year.
Hey! That's the same chance you have of dying of covid!