I downloaded the nyt data and recreated the original pede’s results, but I also found that by his definition of “switched” Biden lost more. But the real question is why are so many votes being added and then taken away? Biden’s numbers look like a rabbit on meth bouncing around. It looks like a computer trying to adjust it so that he wins by a specific margin, just like cruise control in a car can over accelerate and then brake to try to hit the right speed.
I think the other way to get this "flawless" is to have some test and control groups as well as checking for the alternative scenario that Biden votes flipped or were lost.
Indeed. I wish I was math inclined or I would assist. I'm mostly a stats guy. I can read statistical analysis somewhat and understand it but not to the level of the autists here.
We at least know something funky is up. The initial data at least shows the flip and we have the MSM scrambling to scrub their election night coverage. There's something here even if we don't have the whole picture (and may not without the Dominion data).
I downloaded the nyt data myself and ran all the numbers. The big story is how up and down all the numbers are. If a system was just counting ballots there should be very few cases where vote counts go down (only when ballots are somehow rejected after being counted), but the numbers we see for both candidates are very up and down. Huge numbers of votes were removed and that’s a smoking gun.
This is just the same analysis that was stickied here yesterday, performed by one of our pedes. It is flawed, as the ballots that switched Biden to Trump went unaccounted for. At least that's what another engineer pede claimed.
The NYT dataset parameterizes the data as a vote total, and a fraction of votes per candidate. The fraction is apparently rounded or truncated to the nearest 0.1% / 0.001. That limits the precision of the data, and there's a loss of precision as the number of total votes increases. On any given sample update, it is possible for a candidate's fraction to either round down or round up. Occasionally between two samples, one candidate's fraction will happen to go from rounding down to rounding up, and the other candidate's fraction will go from rounding up to rounding down. Without taking the imprecision into account in an analysis, it would appear that the first candidate stole 0.1% of votes from the second candidate.
Even taking the imprecision into account, both candidates' vote tallies appear to jump backwards multiple times in the dataset. That's weird, but it isn't a smoking gun by any means. It could just be flaws in the dataset. Considering it came from the New York Times and was intended to be used by news companies to update their real time displays, it isn't particularly surprising to me that there are inconsistencies.
The way they report does lead to a lot of minor noise, but there are also plenty of surprisingly large loses in the numbers for both candidates, and for the absolute number of votes overall. It certainly doesn’t read like data produced by straightforward counting. Maybe this is because dominion is a fractionalized voting system:
Thank you. This relies on recreating the vote totals per candidate, using the overall vote total multiplied by each candidate's percentage distribution. The recreated vote total per candidate is then compared to the previous calculation, giving you the change over time between each data entry period.
The problem with this method, is it assumes all the numbers in each entry are perfectly in sync. If they are not in sync, even more so if they go in and out of sync between entries, the calculation used here will predictably create the anomalies they've been finding. If you see 20k votes removed from Trump and added to Biden, it's not because they are being changed. It's because the data is correcting itself from the erroneous calculation in the previous step.
There are a handful of reasons these numbers could be out of sync, including imprecision of the percentages not having enough decimal digits, time differences between when the total votes and percentages are taken, total votes and percentages taken from different pools of data, percentages otherwise not specifically calculated from the total votes number, etc.
I really appreciate the time you and others took to explain this. I, and I'm sure many others, are at a significant disadvantage in trying to understand this data due to our lack of mathematical/statistical skill and knowledge. I came to the conclusion that the original calculation was incorrect because the sticky was removed and no mention of it was ever made by right wing media outlets.
If data came in out of sync then wouldn’t the follow up adjustments be unique to each candidate? Makes no sense to me that the same numbers would move between candidates
Depends on how the data is delivered, and even more so, how the states themselves report the vote estimates.
If what Walbort is saying, is that they may be reporting totals and percentages, and not actually tally's.
What does this mean? Let's say the race is reported at 50/50, with 100,000 reporting (so 50k each). Then a box of 10k comes in from downtown Philly with 80% votes to Biden (8000 Biden 2000 Trump).
The recorder now reports 110k votes, 52.7% Biden, 47.3% Trump. If you multiply those numbers now, you get 52,200 Trump, and 47800 Biden. But wait, Biden actually has 58k, so a 200 vote "flip" has occured.
But how could someone "lose" votes? Well if the percentages came out 52% Biden and 48% Trump BEFORE the total was updated to 110k, boom, you just saw Trump votes go to Biden.
Now THIS DOES NOT MEAN THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. I am just GUESSING about a possibility. A full investigation and audit need to happen since I have made some very sweeping assumptions here.
Yeah, I spent some time playing w that Edison data set, but the vote share for each candidate only uses three significant digits -- when you're talking about millions of accumulated votes! It significantly limits the resolution of any analysis, unless you're looking for REALLY big changes.
And why would we assume the switches happen in large batches? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the switches happen incrementally in real time as they're counted?
I just want to point out - seems the changed votes only affected Trump.
However all "lost" votes would impact the whole ticker. Very likely had an immense impact and if someone wanted to do the math they could based on expected results for same party voting.
There's a lead story in the Gateway pundit that verifies it and it can also be self verified but it will cost you about $25,000 which is what the individual ponied up to get the information directly from the website that keeps track of that statistic
I want to see a good study of this. Only conflicting reports right now. Some say it’s all garbage. Some say it impacted Trump much much more than Biden
For those interested, the pede below posted a cleaned up csv file for the Edison data for all states that can be used in excel or sheets. There is much more there, but this should be as easy as it can get.
I thought I read the author say the lost votes could be either, so be careful. We know only Trump votes have the odds of being lost.
They were "finding" votes for Biden, not losing them
But we can give it the benefit of the doubt for the sake of accuracy
No. We can't. We gave enough benefit of the doubt. It's high time to assume the worst.
I downloaded the nyt data and recreated the original pede’s results, but I also found that by his definition of “switched” Biden lost more. But the real question is why are so many votes being added and then taken away? Biden’s numbers look like a rabbit on meth bouncing around. It looks like a computer trying to adjust it so that he wins by a specific margin, just like cruise control in a car can over accelerate and then brake to try to hit the right speed.
The problem i have with this is that there are no instances where Biden "Lost" votes in the switching.
We are assuming good faith when they are clearly operating in bad faith.
However, I'm confident our datapedes in here can "solve for X" on this one, and figure out who the lost votes were for, if necessary.
Good place to go might be VA, where there is a small amount if switched votes but a very large amount of lost votes.
I think the other way to get this "flawless" is to have some test and control groups as well as checking for the alternative scenario that Biden votes flipped or were lost.
Indeed. I wish I was math inclined or I would assist. I'm mostly a stats guy. I can read statistical analysis somewhat and understand it but not to the level of the autists here.
We at least know something funky is up. The initial data at least shows the flip and we have the MSM scrambling to scrub their election night coverage. There's something here even if we don't have the whole picture (and may not without the Dominion data).
I downloaded the nyt data myself and ran all the numbers. The big story is how up and down all the numbers are. If a system was just counting ballots there should be very few cases where vote counts go down (only when ballots are somehow rejected after being counted), but the numbers we see for both candidates are very up and down. Huge numbers of votes were removed and that’s a smoking gun.
I'd be confident there's enough data to review that you could make a statistically accurate sample that's not based on a verbal poll.
This is just the same analysis that was stickied here yesterday, performed by one of our pedes. It is flawed, as the ballots that switched Biden to Trump went unaccounted for. At least that's what another engineer pede claimed.
Cam anyone find any instance of Biden votes switching to Trump? I tried manually for a while but couldn't identify any.
The NYT dataset parameterizes the data as a vote total, and a fraction of votes per candidate. The fraction is apparently rounded or truncated to the nearest 0.1% / 0.001. That limits the precision of the data, and there's a loss of precision as the number of total votes increases. On any given sample update, it is possible for a candidate's fraction to either round down or round up. Occasionally between two samples, one candidate's fraction will happen to go from rounding down to rounding up, and the other candidate's fraction will go from rounding up to rounding down. Without taking the imprecision into account in an analysis, it would appear that the first candidate stole 0.1% of votes from the second candidate.
Even taking the imprecision into account, both candidates' vote tallies appear to jump backwards multiple times in the dataset. That's weird, but it isn't a smoking gun by any means. It could just be flaws in the dataset. Considering it came from the New York Times and was intended to be used by news companies to update their real time displays, it isn't particularly surprising to me that there are inconsistencies.
The way they report does lead to a lot of minor noise, but there are also plenty of surprisingly large loses in the numbers for both candidates, and for the absolute number of votes overall. It certainly doesn’t read like data produced by straightforward counting. Maybe this is because dominion is a fractionalized voting system:
http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/
All 50 states MAGA
I still believe he should have had 80m+ popular vote in a legit election with all things considered.
Do you mean 50m at most?
Yes, but you put 50m+. That's implying over 50m
75,000,000 votes
can someone link me to that Google sheet document if you have access? It's hard to tell between "0" and "O", and "1" and "l" and "I"...
Poor choice of font imo.
Should have just linked to it but I get why you would not; because Twitter. Still, a tinyURL in the image might have been helpful lol
Not to be a naysayer, as a data person myself...
But all of the vote switching evidence is based on the Edison research data set, which we have no idea how that is gathered or managed.
Edison took over vote count reporting for MSM in 2018 however, so I think there is something VERY fishy about that.
Thank you. This relies on recreating the vote totals per candidate, using the overall vote total multiplied by each candidate's percentage distribution. The recreated vote total per candidate is then compared to the previous calculation, giving you the change over time between each data entry period.
The problem with this method, is it assumes all the numbers in each entry are perfectly in sync. If they are not in sync, even more so if they go in and out of sync between entries, the calculation used here will predictably create the anomalies they've been finding. If you see 20k votes removed from Trump and added to Biden, it's not because they are being changed. It's because the data is correcting itself from the erroneous calculation in the previous step.
There are a handful of reasons these numbers could be out of sync, including imprecision of the percentages not having enough decimal digits, time differences between when the total votes and percentages are taken, total votes and percentages taken from different pools of data, percentages otherwise not specifically calculated from the total votes number, etc.
It's more than enough evidence to warrant a court backed investigation.
I really appreciate the time you and others took to explain this. I, and I'm sure many others, are at a significant disadvantage in trying to understand this data due to our lack of mathematical/statistical skill and knowledge. I came to the conclusion that the original calculation was incorrect because the sticky was removed and no mention of it was ever made by right wing media outlets.
If data came in out of sync then wouldn’t the follow up adjustments be unique to each candidate? Makes no sense to me that the same numbers would move between candidates
Depends on how the data is delivered, and even more so, how the states themselves report the vote estimates.
If what Walbort is saying, is that they may be reporting totals and percentages, and not actually tally's.
What does this mean? Let's say the race is reported at 50/50, with 100,000 reporting (so 50k each). Then a box of 10k comes in from downtown Philly with 80% votes to Biden (8000 Biden 2000 Trump).
The recorder now reports 110k votes, 52.7% Biden, 47.3% Trump. If you multiply those numbers now, you get 52,200 Trump, and 47800 Biden. But wait, Biden actually has 58k, so a 200 vote "flip" has occured.
But how could someone "lose" votes? Well if the percentages came out 52% Biden and 48% Trump BEFORE the total was updated to 110k, boom, you just saw Trump votes go to Biden.
Now THIS DOES NOT MEAN THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. I am just GUESSING about a possibility. A full investigation and audit need to happen since I have made some very sweeping assumptions here.
Good input thanks.
I don’t know why they wouldn’t just use a simple tally then work the percentages back from there. Seems ass backwards
Yeah, I spent some time playing w that Edison data set, but the vote share for each candidate only uses three significant digits -- when you're talking about millions of accumulated votes! It significantly limits the resolution of any analysis, unless you're looking for REALLY big changes.
And why would we assume the switches happen in large batches? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the switches happen incrementally in real time as they're counted?
I just want to point out - seems the changed votes only affected Trump.
However all "lost" votes would impact the whole ticker. Very likely had an immense impact and if someone wanted to do the math they could based on expected results for same party voting.
Gotta lose votes to replace them with fake paper votes
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkFUUZXXcAADUUp.jpg His model now makes sense
Do the same for senate and house races.
Can this be independently verified?
There's a lead story in the Gateway pundit that verifies it and it can also be self verified but it will cost you about $25,000 which is what the individual ponied up to get the information directly from the website that keeps track of that statistic
Somebody bought the Edison data? Link please? I’d love to take a crack at that.
Can you please show me an instance where this occurred? Biden switching to Trump. I have looked manually and did not find an instance.
I want to see a good study of this. Only conflicting reports right now. Some say it’s all garbage. Some say it impacted Trump much much more than Biden
We know it was a Trump landslide. Only traitors deny it.
Is this confirmed? Is this true? I NEED ANSWERS!
For those interested, the pede below posted a cleaned up csv file for the Edison data for all states that can be used in excel or sheets. There is much more there, but this should be as easy as it can get.
Upvote and thank him!
https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8SiVRIZ/dominionedison-datany-times-asse/
If it is proved that even a single vote was switched, the election should be void.
u/PedeInspector is now a Forensic Data Analyst.
So that causes a 7.8 million vote swing. Not to mention the dead, felon, underage, duplicate, or otherwise illegal votes.
Good god, they may well have added in excess of 10 million bogus votes to biden.
Wow!
We need to be praying for the courts now because how you present a legal case is different from how we pedes data mine corruption.
Send this to the Trump team!
How accurate is this?
Thank you
Ooh good Lord. If we can make this stick...the left is going to shit salty bricks.
Also 1,000,000 votes just added.. from no human.