I am a Veteran who has the day off today because of Veterans day, so i took some time to do some analysis of the Minnesota results.
THEY STOLE MINNESOTA!!
they use something i'm calling the "2% strategy". Heres how it works:
-
do not let the 3rd party votes get more than 2.1% of the total percentage of votes in minnesota. I think they gave these votes to Biden over the course of the evening.
-
when that was failing, they did a "total adjustment" to all 3 candidates to keep Biden in the lead.
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨 WATCH THIS VIDEO 🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
video here explaining it: https://streamable.com/vd158c
raw data from the new york times: https://static01.nyt.com/elections-assets/2020/data/api/2020-11-03/race-page/minnesota/president.json
pastebin of the python code i used to calculate the numbers based off that data: https://pastebin.com/0DEyqBkW
csv file with all the data so you can use it in excel and look at it yourself: https://pastebin.com/YEHWZaZD (download and change from .txt file to a .csv file, then open it in excel)
SOMEBODY TELL THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN!!! THEY WON MINNESOTA!!!
EDIT: Good call out on the significant figures issue. Great work! However, that doesn't explain why the 3rd party count was adjusted down 23 times while the biden/trump counts were only adjusted down a handful of times each.
Also, note that the Trump/Biden percentages start at 29%-69% at the beginning of the evening, but by the end of the count have adjusted down to 45%-52%. AND YET THE 3RD PARTY PERCENTAGE NEVER DEVIATES FROM 2.1% THE ENTIRE EVENING!
EDIT2: I don't have twitter or social media or anything, so please help get this in front of the Trump campaign or anyone else who can help #stopthesteal !!
EDIT3: FOR ALL YOU PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT ROUNDING ERRORS Why does the Trump and Biden percentages move throughout, but the 3rd party % stays at 2.1%??? https://i.maga.host/2Ym3Wv2.png Biden goes from a 70% lead to a 52% lead, Trump goes from a 30% deficit a 45% deficit. 3RD PARTY VOTES NEVER CHANGES FROM 2.1%
Nice work, I would just like to suggest there are not enough significant digits in column E to make the calculation in column H.
There's only 2 digits, so you wind up with jumps from 2.0% to to 2.1% rather than from 2.04% to 2.05% -- the former rounds to 2.0% while the latter rounds to 2.1%.
This could account for the swings you're seeing in column H as the total volume increases.
For example:
if we assume row23 colE is really 2.049% we get 26892 in column H. likewise, if we assume row24 colE is 2.050% we get 29089 in H. finally if we assume row25 colE is 2.049%, we get 29108 in H.
so while H is still increasing, by rounding E to two digits we see 2.0% then 2.1% then 2.0%
The data analysis is alright, but I agree that it'd be better if the significant digits were shown more since rounding does play a big role.
Is the 2.0% or 2.1% just how the votes turned out, or was it an artificial limit for 3p candidates?
The two major drops in 3p count could have corresponded to two major increases in the 3p count.
Row 32's decrease could've been because of Row 29's major increase. (about 3:54) Row 53's decrease could've been because of Row 43 and 44's major increase. (about 4:30)
IMO, the numbers really shouldn't decrease outside of the correction of reporting errors, but how could it be so hard to report numbers correctly? It is suspicious overall, and thanks to the OP for putting the effort into looking into this.
I addressed this issue in the edit. Let me know what you think! Thanks for looking at it!