For statistical confidence they would have needed to check around 350 to have 95% confidence. This article is a great example of gaslighting. Most people don't know anything about stats and are generally mathphopic, not this pede.
The fact they did not check confidence interval means they are ignorant or purposely misleading.
I would bet everything I have that they checked way more than 50 people and reported on the 50 that they wanted to.
Heard Fleccas talks earlier. He stated that the list they tested was not even the right list. Fake News going to Fake
Exactly -- targeted sample selection
Correction ..... we looked at 14,000 ballots and found 50 that were legal. Here is the story about those 50 legal ballots.
For statistical confidence they would have needed to check around 350 to have 95% confidence. This article is a great example of gaslighting. Most people don't know anything about stats and are generally mathphopic, not this pede.
The fact they did not check confidence interval means they are ignorant or purposely misleading.
not worried. easy to repeat the experiment, so I expect the Republican side will check it out too.
Missing word: “Random”
The best part of this article is that they had to write this article.
We have passed the “there are no claims of voter fraud” threshold and are now at “there are no basis for the claims of voter fraud “.
absolutely right!
You think the media will scrutinize covid deaths like this?
HA, HA - that is a lead list, from god knows where... they should check the names in the actual lawsuits - which they never will do.
"We tested less than .5% of the 14,000. And its debunked" the Fake News Media
derp