But part of me feels like its too good to be true.
It is too good to be true. He's assuming the line should be horizontal when any reasonable model would have it sloping downward even if there was no cheating. Pushing this analysis is going to end up in embarrassment, unfortunately.
Go to 37:30 in the video. They address the possibility that there may be a natural bias against Trump as the straight ballot votes increase. But they point out that even if that were true there is no way that the cluster would be so tight and consistent. That is, you’d see much more randomness because there would be many confounding factors like location, affluency, average age, etc. Yet the upper and lower bounds of the plot are unnaturally consistent. This consistency cannot happen naturally but rather only happen by design
That's not really the point. The thing he is graphing is of this form: Y=I-X where I is the percentage of individual votes that go to Trump. He is assuming that I-X should be independent of X. To the degree that I is independent of X, rather than I-X being independent of X, you would expect a very strong downward slope (even if there is no cheating). The downward slope, which he attributes purely to fraud, it just a consequence of him choosing to graph I-X instead of I on the vertical axis.
But I and X should be independent of each other because all you are doing is comparing two different voting styles. I replied higher up to one of your other comments on the same subject
It is too good to be true. He's assuming the line should be horizontal when any reasonable model would have it sloping downward even if there was no cheating. Pushing this analysis is going to end up in embarrassment, unfortunately.
https://twitter.com/Clustify/status/1326312800310923265
Go to 37:30 in the video. They address the possibility that there may be a natural bias against Trump as the straight ballot votes increase. But they point out that even if that were true there is no way that the cluster would be so tight and consistent. That is, you’d see much more randomness because there would be many confounding factors like location, affluency, average age, etc. Yet the upper and lower bounds of the plot are unnaturally consistent. This consistency cannot happen naturally but rather only happen by design
That's not really the point. The thing he is graphing is of this form: Y=I-X where I is the percentage of individual votes that go to Trump. He is assuming that I-X should be independent of X. To the degree that I is independent of X, rather than I-X being independent of X, you would expect a very strong downward slope (even if there is no cheating). The downward slope, which he attributes purely to fraud, it just a consequence of him choosing to graph I-X instead of I on the vertical axis.
But I and X should be independent of each other because all you are doing is comparing two different voting styles. I replied higher up to one of your other comments on the same subject
https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8Slu4Yw/x/c/1BjFEGBPhw