40
State level irregularities are a good place to start, but we really need to bring the analysis down to the precinct level. The sum of all precincts has to match the total state number or any idiot could verify the discrepancy with excel in two minutes. The fraud has to occur at the precinct level.
posted ago by Mother_of_gains ago by Mother_of_gains +40 / -0

I find it hard to believe they would shave off some small percentage at the state level and allocate those votes out to the precincts.

Probably ties with shiva's earlier analysis that the algorithm works at the lowest level, and we just see the results at the state level when they get added to the total.

5 comments
5 comments share save hide report block hide child comments
Comments (5)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
▲ 2 ▼
– Mother_of_gains [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, I saw that. I just want to make sure people aren't confused. It's not as simple as shaving off a percentage of votes from Trump and giving them to Biden. If you do that at the state level, you then have to allocate those all back to counties and precincts so everything matches. Way too much room for error setting it up that way.

Also, the fraud gets smoothed out at the state level because fraudulent precincts are shuffled in with non-fraudulent. At the precinct level you probably see a few very big spikes.

permalink save report block reply