4chan Anon confirms Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai's observations after measuring Biden performance in same counties -- TOTALLY FUBAR
(media.patriots.win)
🚔 PARTY OF CRIME 🚔
Comments (406)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
If you have taken one stats/regression class in your life of any kind you know this CAN NOT happen naturally. This is algorithmic. Its quite literally a linear function!
ain't no straight lines in nature baby!
We engineers look at this chart and say, someone touched something and I want to know who and what button they pressed.
We engineers are also prone to use hammers on fingers when we find out who touched our stuff and broke it.
Caution, this could be spicy lol
I keep a scorecard of how many times i get hammered
" someone touched something..."
Bill or Joe?
Some of us engineers start with “what the fuck is this complete fuckery I am seeing?”
Normal, regular ass people also look at this and know something ain’t right.
Unbelievable, that they even did this, so obviously, speaks volumes. Tells you how much they’ve been fucking us for years. Trump ‘16 was a fluke, they let their guard down, and didn’t think they had to cheat as much as they did to win. They’ll never make that mistake again, unless we hold them to account NOW.
Now is the time. If this steal isn’t exposed and reversed, the country is irredeemable without a full blown revolution.
There’s a deafening silence right now. And it’s because we all know and see it. We all feel what I just wrote above. We’re waiting to see if they do the right thing... patiently. And the storm is forming, ready to explode if the swamp does what it’s always done and gets away with it.
This is our lives. Our futures. Our country. And it has never hung in the balance before like it does now.
This is what I believe too. People weren't planning on skewing the results since they thought they had it won it easily in 2016.
youre a pretty bad engineer if you think there are no straight lines in nature
Light even bends.
except when it doesnt
Yup this goes against Binomial or Normal distribution... it makes absolutely no sense for their to be a linear trend as Republican voters increase they are 20-30% less likely to vote for Trump? This sort of trend is manufactured.
That is not what the chart shows.
The chart does not show that Republicans are 20-30% less likely to vote for Trump than Democrats.
The chart shows that straight Republican ticket voters are 20-30% less likely to vote for Trump than they are for the straight Republican ticket...because they are DEFINED by having voted for a straight Republican ticket. 100% of straight Republican ticket voters voted for the straight Republican ticket. It is impossible for Trump do do any better than the straight Republican ticket among a crowd defined by having voted for the straight Republican ticket. He must necessarily do the same or worse, and the never-Trumpers mean he's going to lose some percentage of votes.
20-30% may be fishy and worth looking into by comparing the slope of the line to other counties, but the linear relationship is natural and necessary. It would be almost mathematically impossible for this linear trend NOT to happen.
EDIT: To all the downvoters, play with this graph on Desmos. 'x' is the ratio of "straight ticket Republican" voters in the precinct. 'r' is the ratio of "straight ticket Republican" voters who voted for Trump. 'd' is the ratio of "all other voters" who voted for Trump. 't', the green line, is Trump's total votes as 'x' increases. 'y', the purple line, is what Dr. Shiva's charts show. Adjust 'r' and 'd' as you like to see how the line changes. enter text
LATER EDIT: For any newer readers, I now think Ayyadurai's Y is different from mine. The real takeaway which is still relevant though, is that his Y = something - X, which means that it is naturally fighting a downward slope as X increases.
That graph is not based on voter registration. The X axis is, according to Dr. Shiva, defined precisely by how many voters filled in the literal straight ticket Republican bubble, which exists on MI ballots.
You're right on that point. My bad. Comment deleted.
It's cool. There are a lot of ambiguities in how Dr. Ayyadurai is defining his axes, and it's responsible for most of the confusion in this thread. If we were all able to agree on those, I think this thread would've gone way better.
I got Y slightly wrong myself...not so wrong that the overall conclusion about the downward slope changes, but wrong enough that my argument about "running out of independent voters" on the right of the graph aren't as relevant. I wasted too much effort on that, because it was a dead end and not even important for explaining the cause of the slope, which is Y = anything - X.
Not if you expect Y to increase with X. The answer to which is the explanation. If you don’t expect non straight party voters to track straight party voters bit be more constant in there behavior no matter how biased the straight party voters are. The graph means nothing.
However, the results do not look to be the same for the democrats as they lose negative correlation moving from 40 to 60%
Bro.. you are very wrong and you and this other doofus are making yourself look very dumb by your retarded reasoning.
Insults aren't helpful to clarify math, dude.
New accounts talking like PatrickHangry is should be banned with extreme prejudice.
why? ive been reading thiswhole thread and imo this guy is being raked through the coals for no reason. he explains his reasoning and even provides links where you can plug in values and see the results plotted out.
he obviously is a big trump supporter and a stats guy. we dont deport people here that we dont agree with, we deport assholes. patrick has been respectful to the letter, and everyone is just brigading him, and as a fellow pede i think its disgraceful.
sometimes i think we get too overzealous here on TDW, and it can cloud our judgement and sense of intuitive honesty with ourselves. it is essential that we work together to be 100% sure of our research, we cant leave any possiblity of an error, our freedom is on the line.
i stand with @PatrickHangry. try to deport me, i did nothing wrong.
Thanks dude.
To be fair, it turns out I'm not 100% correct in my line of reasoning in this thread, because I misunderstood Y a bit. That makes my Desmos graph irrelevant, since it's showing something a bit different from Ayyadurai. The part about the downward slope being an artifact of his graphing is still true though: When you construct Y = whatever - X, the "whatever" part has to fight against a downward slope. That's where the perfect beautiful line comes from.
I understand where FormerGraveheart's is coming from though. He goes way too far I think, but I understand.
Over on Arfcom, most threads involving Trump before the election got brigaded by never-Trumpers and ShareBlue shills exploiting a fracture in the community over bump stocks. They know EXACTLY how to divide libertarian-leaning conservatives into useless infighting, and the mods let it happen, because Arfcom is a gun forum without an explicit pro-Trump mission statement. I see it happening so clearly, and I just want the mods to ban the usual suspects straight to Internet Hell, but they get away with it and succeed in demoralizing people into inaction...which is exactly their goal.
Arfcom has enough posters to function pretty well despite the smug shills, but they take their toll. Another less populated forum that I will not name has been totally destroyed by them. No matter how bad things get, the mods never fix the problem. You have to nip it in the bud before it takes over, and that's where FormerGraveheart is coming from.
Ever since November 3rd most of the demoralization I've seen has come from the "It's over. Give up" people instead, and I got so sick and tired of trying to motivate people that I came here specifically because of rule 1: "This is The Donald. Our community is a high-energy Trump rally. There are no exceptions."
I like that attitude, but you still have to separate the good evidence from the bad if you want to make a slam dunk argument in the courts. That creates a fracture point, because anyone doing due diligence against the grain can look suspiciously demotivating, especially if they're new. It sucks, but it is what it is.
This particular thread is REALLY complicated due to Ayyadurai's ambiguity about his axes, and most people only see one facet to each ambiguity. This makes it easy to mistrust someone who doesn't see the same thing you see. I do this too under other circumstances: Whenever anyone acts like the Democrats aren't cheating, I have to conclude, "They're either lying to themselves, or they're lying to me."
Tensions are really high for good reason. I honestly think it's not just our country at stake, but the fate of humanity. The fact that the New World Order put the Great Reset on the cover of Time Magazine last week was a huge eye opener that we are running out of time. Under the circumstances, I get why people are trigger-happy.
I'll just have to earn trust over time. It is what it is.
are you a "no agenda" listener? if not, youre a perfect candidate for that podcast lol. take care. welcome to thedonald. MAGA KAG
He's a new account. New accounts should get no benefit of the doubt. A new account that is deliberately not understanding the arguments presented to it and shitting all over our best statistical evidence so far should be gone with no questions asked. If he does have any good points to make, someone established can make them.
and who makes you the arbiter of what is established and what isnt? listen to yourself.
we were all new here at one point. i dagree with you if the guy was posting malware or being an asshole, but hes not. no one needs your permission on what gets posted here or if its valid.
Ironic. You should see all my posts on Arfcom where I'm arguing that people need to stand up for Trump and stop being weak demoralizing quitters.
I'm not your enemy. We're in this together, and we both agree the Democrats are massively cheating. We're just looking at Ayyadurai's data differently.
no.. that's not what would have to happen. "rough math" is not the same as regression analysis. The mean is in the middle of those STRAIGHT line grouping of dots in a linear way, which means that as MORE people that identify republican MORE OF THEM DON"T VOTE TRUMP. A 100% republican county would have the MOST votes not for Trump. This isn't an avg it's a FUNCTION
I get what you're going for with %'s but I think you may have it wrong.
The problem is that the graph is a ratio of the difference between voters voting for down ticket R's and Trump. The ratio would not change with a population count change.
The video yesterday with shiva went into more detail about how they derived the numbers.
So I'll write up an example here to draw up what I'm thinking. I think your math is right you're just thinking of the wrong set of variables ( I could also be wrong and it looks like you're coming at this honestly so I'll hold all pejoratives) .
1000 vote district with Trump being 10% more popular than straight ticket R.
10%R = 100 R votes and 100 Trump votes for a total of 200 Trump votes
50%R = 500 R votes and 100 Trump votes for a total of 600 Trump votes
80%R= 800 R votes and 100 Trump votes for a total of 900 Trump votes.
Expressed as a ratio of 2:10 trump votes and 1:10 R votes gives a 1:10 ratio bonus to trump over regular R's. That holds across the entire range. That was the 'sample' of what is expected ( hypothetically ).
I could be wrong, this is how I interpreted the 1hr presentation by shiva.
So in the case of the suspected fraud graphs: suppose our algo removes a fixed 40% of Trump votes in districts beyond ~30%R.
In our 50%R district we have these ratios R500:1000 and the 40% reduced 600-> T360:1000 -> The difference being 140:1000
In our 80%R district we have these ratios R800:1000 and the 40% reduced 900-> T540:1000 -> The difference being 260:1000
Both of those differences would be expressed as negative. As you can see though, flipping a fixed % manifests itself as that flat decline plane correlating to whatever % was taken.
I'm tired though so go easy if I'm wrong here. I'm pretty sure I should have actually done the math as Trump 10% more popular than R's so you'd have 110,550,and 880. The difference there is 1:10 more popular than the R's vs a 1:10 of the whole, the comparison ratio between the two remains consistent across the whole ( either 1:10 more than R's or 1:10 more of the whole than the R's )...
ok well at this point I'll just hit save and acknowledge I've either displayed regular autism or chan autism..
I think we need to ask Shiva for the exact data and formulas used.
You can't argue with idiots. Fitting username.
And I agree with you with 1 exceprion: the scattered plot looks too neat. It looks like an algorithm and about (and please I'm simply eyeballing the curve) r=-.8 or so. That's almost perfect negative correlation. And this is what you kind of argue here. A linear reverse correlation. How common is this in the elections? Not very, imo
That’s basically what I’ve been trying to argue on here the past couple days. You’re 100% correct
No, that's not what the Y axis is! The Y axis is NOT Trump votes. The Y axis is: trump_votes MINUS straight_republican_ticket_votes
The right side of the chart is defined by having 100% straight Republican ticket votes. Therefore, if Trump is 20-30% below the zero line on the right, that means 70-80% of voters in those precincts voted Trump.
Meanwhile, if Trump is 20% above the line on the left, that only means 20% of the Democrats/independents in precincts without straight party votes, voted for Trump.
The actual numbers may be fishy. The slope of the line may be fishy, and slopes need to be compared between counties. The basic direction and linear nature of the relationship makes sense though.
How do you explain the zero slope distribution in a Dem heavy county?
My first guess was cheating: The extreme blue precincts, where straight party R votes don't happen, would be more likely to start flipping Trump votes to Biden.
RStroud has a more benign explanation: "The change in slope could also be a confounding variable. I would suspect demographics differences in heavily democratic precincts may make them more sticky, and less likely to swing republican."
What are your thoughts?
Thank you.
The data points to cheating, but maybe not in the way it is discussed by Dr. Ayyadurai. Initial thoughts are, the negative slope distribution is expected in a Red heavy county.
The individual candidate voters are predominantly cross over voters. In a R heavy precinct, you will have a large proportion of straight party voters (right on X axis) and a larger proportion of R crossovers voting for D (down on Y axis). As R voter proportionality decreases, the distribition starts moving left on x axis and the number of cross over votes from R to D decreases, moving distribution up on the chart. Thus forming a negative slope distribution.
If this is true, it should apply for a D heavy county, where the presentation showed a flat line distribution. This will not fit the above assumption and maybe the cheating took place in the D heavy county machines.
Thoughts?
Yeah, that makes sense to me, at least as "one" potential source of cheating. There were clearly larger sources in places like Detroit, but...
If we were to add X back to Y to get a less confusing chart, we'd see that Trump gets the most votes in the same precincts that have the most straight party Republicans. The further left you go from there, Trump's votes gently drop pretty linearly, as the straight ticket R voters also drop linearly....until the "bend" on the far left where they suddenly drop, which happens to correspond to a [coincidentally?] straight portion in the "Y = blah - X" graph. Something is happening there in the precincts that don't like straight Republicans.
I can think of three possible "somethings" here, but none of them fully satisfy my curiosity about the shape of the bend:
a. They're cheating
b. There's a threshold at which the peer pressure in that community suddenly makes a qualitative shift toward increasingly greater D conformity
c. There's a threshold at which some kind of "flight" instinct kicks in among R-leaning independents, such that independent Trump voters suddenly drop off as you get beyond a certain threshold of anti-Republican-ness in a community
Last time i will try to explain this to you and then im done. the center of the x axis and the mid line would be the expectation if districts were split 50/50 R & D.. Now the center would be the best the R could do if 100% on the x axis.. conversely if 0% on the x axis then the top left would be the best (in theory), but not according to the function we see. I don't think you understand how this table works.
You're right about the first part: The center value gives a better average of how popular Trump is vs. the straight Republican party, in that county.
You're wrong about the second part: As you shift from center to right, the absolute best Trump can do adjusts [roughly] linearly [with noise] from the center point you described, to the (100% straight Republican, 0% Trump advantage) point. At the far right, Trump logically cannot do better than the straight Republican bubble among the pool of voters defined by having already marked the straight Republican bubble. To do so, he would need more than 100% of the vote.
And you can see the pattern emerging BEFORE the center of the x axis and center line. Here's what happened. They fooled themselves into thinking this was a tighter race then it ever was and thought they would skim a few percentage points from trump and pass them to biden and no one would be the wiser. Problem is a huge turnout came for trump and they forgot to put a measure on the function they coded to STOP skimming votes at any value and you got a linear graph like this. If they would have just skimmed votes between the 45-55% R range and not there after, you would not see this, but there were no parameters on the code they installed.
I agree they cheated, and they may have even cheated exactly like you're saying, because the slopes of the graphs are suspicious. Frankly, I do not believe there were that many never-Trumpers among the straight-ticket voters.
However, people are being way too uncritical of Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai's analysis here. The idea that the linear relationship itself is a red flag, doesn't hold up. There are other analyses on this same data which might hold up, when looked from a different angle.
I'm not your enemy. Please, look at the Desmos graph I made and understand what it's showing.
looking at the video
y axis = (percentage of trump votes from individual candidate voter pool) minus (percentage of republican straight party voter pool)
his example:
assuming a precinct has 2000 ballots cast
1000 straight party votes 450 republican (45%) 550 democrat (55)
1000 individual candidate votes 250 trump votes (25%) 750 biden votes (75%)
y axis = -20%
25% of individual candidate voters - 45% of straight party voters = -20 percentage points
Are we meeting at the same point?
The Y axis you describe is probably correct, because it matches 3/4 of the evidence I've seen. It matches what Ayyadurai says verbally, and in the slide at 19:32, and wherever the heck I saw the quote "% Trump non straight - % GOP straight ticket."
There's a slight ambiguity here, where his graph at 21:00 says "(Trump - Republican Straight Party) Vote %". I think this threw me off earlier, because it seems to imply the Trump percent there is Trump's percent of the total vote. That's what I based my Desmos graph on, but I think that was wrong. We'll move forward assuming your Y is correct.
We may be in disagreement about what the X axis is: You're using it as straight_party_r_voters / straight_party_voters, whereas I always thought it was straight_party_r_voters / total_voters. I think this is ambiguous, and the only way to resolve it for sure is to run the numbers both ways to see which matches what Ayyadurai did.
However, for the sake of this thread, we'll assume your understanding of the X axis is correct, so we can move forward under shared assumptions.
In that case, your math checks out, and we're meeting at the same point:
0.25 - 0.45 = -0.2
Proceed? Note that the important part that forces the "downward-right slope" as X increases is the part where Y = blah - X.
I appreciate your logic and that you took the time to explain your view of things.
Do you then suppose that Shiva is using the wrong methodology here? Are we just proving that the higher percentage of straight Republican party votes were cast the lower percentage of individual votes that go to the Republican presidential candidate?
key word on the Y-axis is Relavtive. I see where you are going with this, but it is accounted for.
no.. cus the slippery slope is a fallacy..so the linear slope is also a fallacy. Deboonked.
"What about stick bugs!?! They're straight! See, Trump totally loses because...stick bugs!"
The cheat kicks in at about 20% give or take. As the voting district increases in numbers of GOP votes cast, the higher the % of votes is stolen It is directly proportional. If you had a county with 100% GOP votes with 10,000 people voting, Biden would win.
I think the more people vote straight R the less vote Trump (because they already voted straight R), which is what happens in this graph. The Trump line going down is actually the straight R number going up, which is not a line in this graph but the x axis
What do you mean by the bogus data part?
You mean the post that had 20k upvotes?
https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8O2wesk/happening-calling-every-pede-to-/
One comment here, there is NO REASON any votes to be "taken away" "most" percents scan the ballots after it is verified, therefore.. WHY THE HELL are they BEING TAKEN AWAY. Think about this a moment, sit there with 200K pieces of paper on your machine... it ONLY ADDS, it can't subtract. But, we have votes... disappearing.... There is no NEGATIVE VOTE feature, I can not pull a vote from President Trump while scanning the next ballot....
Also comparing timestamped data has issues. Even in an honest system you can have "bouncy" data like this in subsequent API calls due to variable read/write/caching behaviours in the underlying system. You could probably mine it for trends, but you couldn't compare subsequent API calls without a thorough understanding of the underlying systems. I strongly agree that analysis needs to be disregarded
if I had to take a guess? You subtract votes, frequently from both candidates. Then you filter them back in only for ONE candidate. The reason for this is because if you just keep adding you're going to quickly go over the maximum legal votes.
So you subtract from all while keeping the %'s similar or the same. Then filter the votes back in for one candidate so as to allow slowly moving the % from all candidates into one. If you just flip 10% in one update that's blatant as all F. Removing and re adding keeps the %'s differences looking organic as they slowly drift further apart.
OK makes sense, yeah I tried to replicate myself but am a python noob, so I chalked it up to that. Makes sense thanks! Definitely aware that false flags are around...
I think you're right. That analysis was so badly done it had to have been on purpose.
I don't want to be that guy, but how do we know it's not just the Trump chart mirrored. I wouldn't expect them to have opposite but identical performance in each precinct.
Edit:
Never mind it doesn't look to be and identical mirror (look at around 16%), but it instead confirms an artificial change past 20% that hurts Trump and helps biden.
It was clearly designed to shave "a few percent" of the votes from Trump to Biden. As Trump gets more votes (deep red areas), a higher percentage can be stolen -- and Trump still wins those red areas so its difficult to detect the fraud. But the data is too perfect and unlikely to be random voting.
Yep, they don't want to steal from the close races, because it becomes to obvious, they just need to steal in uncontested areas, where they have the room to not be noticed. Honestly, I'm both sickened and impressed. They will not get away with this.
So... are there a bunch of farmers living in some far away county in GA/MI/WI right now looking at their farmer neighbors wondering how 60% of them voted Biden when they've never even seen a democrat at the country store?
No, it's nothing crazy like 60%, it's just 10% - 15%, you know just enough to win. 2000 people vote Rep and 300 vote Dem. They just adjust it, 1950 Rep and 350 Dem. See nothing looks off, Trump won the precinct. Now do that in every Precinct that Trump's wins and you've added thousands and thousands of votes.
Vote salami slicing
Unlikely in the same way that while it's possible, it's unlikely that you will burst into flames. Near zero percent chance of happening naturally, even lower considering that the president has a nearly 100% approval rate in his own party, you could have ten thousand elections and still never see this.
Correct. When the algorithm and other fraud wasn't proving to be enough they stopped the polls and did the 4am ballot dumps.
Keep in mind with 2/3rds of the votes already counted you have a pretty good idea of how many ballots you need to dump to take and maintain the lead.
It in essence is q mirror because there are 2 candidates.
For those who didn't watch the video (watch it), he is measuring Trump's performance on straight ticket votes vs non. The idea is that there should be a roughly horizontal line showing Trump vote percent closing to straight ticket percent.
Instead, after a small threshold Trump starts to lag more and more. So much that a county voting straight GOP 45% of the straight party votes only votes for Trump 25% in non straight party tickets.
And it is done 8n such am obvious line it's crazy.
Biden's looks like a mirror because the votes stilen from Trjmp were given to him. Make sense?
That's why people plotting it usually only show the one candidate.
I'm not sure if the two axis's aren't strictly independent. Presumably the higher the republican support the greater the potential for a candidate to do poorly. I would check it's probably normalised and proportionate. I assume as it's going by percentage that it is normalised.
What you really need to do is also run this for all regions and see what you get.
If my assumptions about the formula are correct then there are reasons why you might get a pattern like this. That includes if you're flipping a specific proportion of votes from Trump to Biden linearly but not votes then that's going weaken Trump's performance the more republican a region is. The angled line you're seeing is actually the slope of straight republican support but 10% of it. However something is happening at a fixed linear proportion to the votes in these graphs from a quarter of the way in to a third.
To fully verify this we need the data, formulas and we need to run it exhaustively as well as both ways (Democrat X axis as well) and to actually run some probabilities.
You need to just take the hour and watch Dr Shiva's video. Explains this and more. It is incontrovertible.
I have and I'm also a specialist. The more data you have the more sure you can be. They're not entirely clear about their methodology.
What they have looks like a suspect and unnatural pattern.
What's more remarkable is what might be causing that. It looks potentially as though a third of votes is the real rate of loss, that is a third of people who vote straight republican switched to Biden for president. In many cases it looks like it's headed toward 50% and in a very uniform way.
It's almost as if Trump votes are a coin toss or weighted for straight republican and it's non-straight republican votes dragging it up from 50%.
The curve would then be explained by the drop off on the number of non-straight republican votes going to Trump as the proportion of those that could go to Trump and make him out perform the rest of republicans goes down.
I would need to look at the raw data and formulas. We can't really have a reasonable discussion that can fully come to anything without that.
However regardless of whatever problems and explanations I can find the plots they showed have some trends that I find very unlikely.
I think the math is still shit. Show me Biden in Detroit. 100% going to fall off like that. OP is a bundle of sticks.
You know, a anon on 4chan, is cited on a scientific paper as "anon" for writing a mathematical proof that had stumped academia for decades.
Interesting got anymore info on that?
https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/an-anonymous-online-anime-fan-just-solved-a-problem-thats-been-eluding-mathematicians-for-decades/
That was awesome thanks pede. Autism strikes again
aaand gone
It is still there, just closed to new posts.
archive.is has several copies as well. latest
P.S. archive.is really needs to install an adblocker on their virtual browser.
is 4chan as cucked as reddit?
This may have been possible since before the 2002 elections.
If someone can help me figure out when the feature was added in 2002, that may be very significant.
Shiva talked about this in his presentation at about the 10:00 mark. It was discovered by analyzing an Access database used in the Diebold machines. The Diebold release notes date the software update that added this "feature" at June 27, 2001.
So here's the deal. The first election that could have been tampered with was the midterms leading up to the Iraq War. Although that also depends on whether that feature could be run on machines during a count with that update.
Yes, possibly. But I can't say how widespread these voting machines were 20 years ago. Kind of an important detail...
Spez: The weighted-race feature wasn't strictly related to the data analysis done on the Access database. Also the feature was documented in GEMS software, not Diebold (they might have been the same, I can't tell). Just wanted to be completely accurate here.
Great, if you have a link that would be awesome. Would love to see the conversation continue.
Shiva and his guys should be doing counties in other states as well. I am not sure if the peculiarity of Michigan's system - which allows two types of voting ("straight ticket" and independent) - is what allows this to be seen or not.
I'm sure that they could look at votes for senator or representative less Trump in other states.
Im not sure though that a recount would solve this problem. The program probably rejected the right number of ballots to be manually "duplicated", meaning they flipped those votes on paper as well. If that's the case, we are in a bad situation.
When this goes to court then the Trump team can use forensic data to prove that there was bonafide evidence of fraud. This isn't about throwing out nameless ballots or finding unverified signatures etc.... it's about proving the fraud via data analysis. No proof of fraud = no case, this is a great first step.
It would be fantastic if a recount just flips the votes to the right candidate (I agree that probably is unlikely); but this is about digging in deep and rooting out the swamp. I am sure forensics has proven financial/insurance fraud without "proof" in the court of law before. This is no difference.
edit: Also, I feel like voting is so different all over the country it just confuses everyone. When I voted, I showed my ID, verified I lived at the current address, signed a screen, and they then logged my name. I was given a 10"x4" piece of paper to put into the voting machine, voted, and then it printed my choices on the sheet. I then fed that paper into a big ballot machine and left. So if it switched my vote electronically after the fact, my ballot still had Donald Trump marked and not Biden. I have zero clue how Georgia or other states do it though.
I voted early in person on the Friday before the election., Habersham County, Georgia.
Showed my DL for ID.
Poll worker typed my ID info into a computer.
A form was printed with my information. Address, Name, DOB.
I had to initial next to my name and address acknowledging that the form was correct, then sign it.
Poll worker took that signed paper from me, fed it into a machine and it spit out a plastic card (like a hotel keycard).
I went to the electronic touch screen voting machine and entered my card.
A screen appeared with my ID info, and the ballot options. I voted straight R.
I hit the completed/done button after my last choice. A paper ballot with my choices printed from a machine next to the touch screen electronic ballot. The touch screen machine instructed me to removed my plastic card and to take the printed ballot to a polling station machine. The poll worker instructed me to feed my printed ballot (it had a QR code on it) into a machine, the machine gave a "success confirmation". I had to return my plastic voting machine card. I left with a "I Am A Georgia Voter" decal that they handed to me. Nothing else that I hadn't entered with.
After listening to the testimony of the Dominion whistleblower, who reported that all of the rejected ballots that had to be duplicated were for Biden, I had the exact same thought.
If you think about it, it's actually pretty clever. Have the poll workers unwittingly create thousands of duplicate ballots for Biden, and then "oops", looks like they all got mixed in together.
There's no time for that to occur.
That is almost certainly not how in-person voting works. I'm not from Michigan, so I don't know the exact details of their system, but generally speaking with paper ballots, those are fed through a reader and into a sealed box.
The duplication that you've seen/heard of is happening where mail-in ballots are being processed.
To alter the paper ballots, you'd require hundreds of conspirators getting a count of how many Trump ballots need to be removed from the sealed boxes in their precinct. And remember that they would need to remove more ballots in precincts that lean heavily Republican (places where the election volunteers are more likely to be Republicans themselves).
I really can't see how this type of fraud would stand up against a hand recount of even a random sampling of precincts in each county. But note that random in this case really means random - it would be very easy to hide this if one person or a small number of people are responsible for choosing which precincts to recount.
That’s a f’ing mirror image of each other. That can’t happen unless we are being trolled or this is MASSIVE Voting fraud
Actually, it has to happen. The Y axis values plotted are necessarily recipricals of each other. A vote taken from Trump and given to Biden moves the red dot (Trump) down and the blue dot (Biden) up.
Can someone compare this to a similar chat in areas that don't have the cheat software? I think for the average Biden voter, they'll probably just think this is normal. It would be good to have comparison charts to show them that this isn't normal.
WRT anons question about it being counter intuitive, it makes quite a bit of sense.
You don't want to steal votes until some threshold of the competitor being favored. That way you can siphon off votes without flipping districts, which will bring additional scrutiny. The more conservative the district the higher the percentage that can be flipped without setting off flags, since you can simply hide it behind a narrative of general popularity. So you would look to be outperforming vs down ballot members of your own party by that proportion.
Yup, they start just under 50% as to not raise flags.
Looks like it might start as early as 20%, but hard to tell by just eyeballing it.
yeah about 20/30%.. the ones that would be on the bottom would be on the top or moving towards it at that point so it's kind of a neutral point. nonetheless, makes no damn sense.. more republicans = less votes?
Why wouldn't they flip down ballot also? That would cover the trail much better I would think
Maybe because there are districts that vote one way locally and the other federally. It would be much more tricky to account for that algorithmically and lead to more issues which could draw attention. Basically, keep it simple stupid. You avoid this one method of detection by doing it, but definitely expose yourself to others.
Maybe the last minute (4am) rush drop off mail-in-ballots are only what account for the heavy Biden only votes/ballots. They were rushed.
Clearly what happened is that Trump bear them so bad that they panicked and start making stupid mistakes that is forensically glaring.
They didn't make any stupid mistakes. The software is designed to redistribute the votes so that the predefined weighted percentage advantage goes to the chosen candidate. The problem is that the vote count is so significant in the predominantly Republican counties that the "redistribution" is obvious. As more votes pour in the greater the redistribution required to give the "favored" candidate the predefined percentage margin. The stupid mistake is using the feature in the first place.
They didn't make any stupid mistakes. The software is designed to redistribute the votes so that the predefined weighted percentage advantage goes to the chosen candidate. The problem is that the vote count is so significant in the predominantly Republican counties that the "redistribution" is obvious. As more votes pour in the greater the redistribution required to give the "favored" candidate the predefined percentage margin. The stupid mistake is using the feature in the first place.
Big
That is an algorithm at work. 0% chance that is natural
I saw Dr. Shiva's video. The only problem is they don't show the reference data. Not saying it's not true, though... it obviously IS. Just saying that they need to offer the data they used as well, so people can check it if they don't believe. Many people probably don't know who Shiva is, or how reputable he is.
The video does a good job of laying it out and putting it in terms a 5 year old could understand. If they included the data, that video could be used to prove it to ANYBODY who disagrees. Math doesn't lie.
Shiva is not reputable.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190518/23370542236/laying-out-all-evidence-shiva-ayyadurai-did-not-invent-email.shtml
Spez: Shiva trolls downvoting facts, lol. They never go away - like herpes.
Well, to be fair... I don't think he means so much that he LITERALLY invented email, as in the IDEA of it and everything. Just that is was a good idea, that had yet to be properly implemented, and he basically PIONEERED the traditional use of it as it is to day, and gave birth to it's popularity.
Just as to say Benjamin Franklin didn't "INVENT" electricity. It's always existed, he just pioneered in the field of making it practical and helped lead to it being a household thing.
I've never really heard it be said that Shiva IS the inventor of email, but rather he likes to THINK of himself AS the inventor of email. Without his work, we STILL would have ended up with email. It just likely would have been longer until it became a commonplace thing.
Bruh.
https://www.inventorofemail.com/
He is a kook.
Nothing he did had any bearing on email use. Maybe a few hundred people ever used his system. Nobody copied his system.
Nobody ever heard of him until his ridiculous claim.
I wasn't saying he literally INVENTED it, the idea and ALL. He did have a patent on the name EMAIL, and I though he later went on after optimizing it, to give rise to the first electronic mail system to be used by several large businesses.
Not literally email as we know it today, sending messages across the internet, but a local area network for companies to use to quickly send and sort important information.
Wasn't a system based on his original "EMAIL" patent the first to be more widely used by multiple entities vs some proprietary systems used by only a few select places?
Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't really done a deep dive into it. But I also never thought of him as "The God of email" either. Just that he helped to spread it's adoption.
He has a copyright on the specific text of his code. No patent. No claim on the word email.
Email precedes his program.
He did nothing at all to propagate email use.
Do a deep dive and come back and help me beat back this stupid claim that many repeat as fact!
Just as I suspected... TROLL! Mike Masnick, owner of techdirt, is a left wing hack. Nice try... DEPORT!
https://twitter.com/mmasnick?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
can someone explain this to me like I'm 5? with crayons and actual explanations?
Left to right (% of republicans in an area) Up and down (Trump vote or no Trump vote.)
essentially, in higher republican areas, there were LESS Trump votes per registered republicans and republican votes and instead they voted Biden.
That makes the graph so much easier to read. Thank you.
So the "performance amongst own party" quantity is the performance in relation to proportion of own-party-registered voters?
Essentially, yes.
I'd say exactly right, but the words are ambiguous. Shiva's plot uses for the Y axis:
the fraction of votes cast for Trump on standard ballots minus the fraction of straight party ballots cast for the Republican Party
And the X axis is the percentage of straight party ballots cast for the Republican Party
Whoever programmed the algo's for this election steal is:
Retarded as fuck
Lazy as fuck
Has been GRILLED already for being both
Probably dead already
I can already hear the conversation...
"Can you ensure that Trump doesn't win? Like can you siphon some of his votes off? But it can't be obvious. It has to be complex, and it can't come back to haunt us."
"Yeah, absolutely. That'll be easy."
The code:
if Trumpvote=1;
add Bidenvote+0.5, subtract Trumpvote-0.5;
This part of the program is where I am a genius.
if integer/=/wholenumber, roundup;
end
results are not counter-intuitive, trump is underperforming in more republican districts logarithmicly, biden is overperforming in more republican places, logarithmicly.
just enought not to change results of that particular election, but give the total winner vote to democRATs.
Made a little bit different graph based on the same Oakland County data. It shows that the more blue precinct is, the more likely to see Biden in a blue ballot. While red precincts are all around 60%.
Pretty blatant cheating. Data doesn't lie.
This post is simply false. I'm sorry, Pedes. I want it to be true. I really do. But it's just not the case.
Allow me to explain:
Subtracting the % of ANY candidate's relative party strength from the candidate's % of ticket splitters will generally always yield a negative slope like we saw in Shiva's video.
There is nothing unusual about it.
Here's why:
Who are "ticket splitters?" in general? Moderates, undecideds, squishy R's and squishy D's who for one reason or another are NOT hardcore party voters. YES, that includes SOME Democrats who switch to Trump.
Therefore, in a heavy Democrat precinct, for example, we can expect a HIGHER percentage of Democrat ticket splitters who voted for Trump, along with a number of moderate or non-party voters who also voted for Trump or Biden more or less evenly. We can even give Trump the edge here.
When we subtract the percentage of a light Republican precinct (which in Dr. Shiva's video shows up on the LEFT side of the horizontal x-axis) FROM the percentage of Trump ticket splitters, the ticket splitter plot will (generally) be a positive number ABOVE the x axis. Let's pick some numbers for an example:
Precinct Strength (as measured by straight ticket voters): Rep = 25% Dem =75%
Trump Ticket Splitters: 75% will be D's voting for Trump since that's the relative precinct strength. Let's also give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume he won moderates, 60-40, for a rough total of 70% Trump, to 30% Biden among ticket splitters.
Shiva would then plot the data as follows:
70% Trump ticket splitters, minus 25% Republican precinct strength, yields a plot of (25, 45), or the 25% mark on the x-axis (one quarter along the horizontal axis), and 45 points up the y-axis, so high upper left quadrant.
This is normal, right? No stolen votes here. Just a single heavy Dem district with a high number of ticket splitters going for Trump.
Let's plot a Heavy (75%R, 25%D) GOP district the same way:
Who are the ticket splitters here? By definition, 75% of the registered party ticket splitters will be Republicans voting for Biden. This might be hard for you to accept at first, but it's an indisputable FACT. Among registered party voters (forgetting about 3rd party for a moment), this precinct is 75% GOP, and only 25% Democrats. So ANY registered party ticket splitters will automatically be (roughly) 75% GOP registered voters casting ballots for Biden. The raw numbers might still be very low, but in Shiva's analysis, that's irrelevant, as he only looks at percentages. So that also means 25% are Democrats voting for Trump. Let's again assume a decent margin for Trump among moderates, just for the benefit of the doubt: 60-40 Trump. That means Trump will get somewhere between 25% and 60% of ticket splitters in this district, depending on the raw numbers of each. Let's just give him the highest possible number: 60% of all ticket splitters went for Trump.
Time for Shiva's math: we now take our Trump ticket splitter percentage of 60% and we subtract the relative Republican precinct strength of 75%, yielding -15%.
Plot it on the chart, (75, -15) means it's three-quarters along the horizontal x-axis, and 15 points DOWN the y-axis, so it's the lower right quadrant.
Draw a line between your two Trump plots: it's a negative slope, even though no votes were stolen, and even though Trump OVERPERFORMED among ticket splitters in both examples.
This is critical. At no point do we have stolen votes in this example. Yet we get the same negative slope as Shiva, when he's alleging vote stealing.
Now do the same for Biden, without stealing votes, and what do you get? The exact same plot. A negative slope.
If you want to get fancy, as anon did on 4chan, and plot Biden against "Republicanism," you just get the reverse, a positive slope, and it doesn't matter one bit because I've already shown you that no votes were stolen. We gave Trump the benefit of the doubt in this example, and it proves nothing because the negative slope is normal when comparing ticket splitters against hardcore voters - no matter whose name is on the ballot, no matter which political party is at the top of the chart.
It's the same slope every stinking time.
This makes a lot of sense, however split ticket voting is becoming rare as discussed in the following sources. So for a specific "area" to swing this much... is statistically improbable. Especially for Trump who had a 95%+ approval within the GOP.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/split-ticket-voting-hit-a-new-low-in-2018-senate-and-governor-races/
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/2018-midterms-split-ticket-voting.html
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/08/split-ticket-districts-once-common-are-now-rare/
I don't see how your argument helps Shiva at all.
In fact, Shiva doesn't bother to look at the raw numbers of ticket splitters, he's only looking at percentages.
If he did look at raw numbers, this would be even more obvious. Consider a heavy Republican district, say 80% GOP with 1,000 total registered party voters. That means 800 will be Repubicans, 200 are Democrats.
Now let's say only 10 registered voters split their tickets. Statistically, how many of them are likely Republicans voting for Biden? How many are Democrats voting for Trump?
The answer is: 8 Republicans cast votes for Biden in this district, while just 2 Dems voted for Trump.
But plot this on Shiva's chart and it looks like this:
Republican district strength plot along x-axis: 80 Trump ticket split vote percentage on y-axis (20%-80%): -60
This will yield a far lower right plot. Trump is clearly underperforming among ticket splitters in this district, as we would expect. Without any vote stealing.
This is just the type of slope you get when you compare relative party strength against that party's performance with moderate voters. It doesn't matter which candidate, nor party. In a heavy party district, that party will do WORSE among moderate voters compared to the party. In a weak party district, that party will do BETTER among moderate voters when compared to the strength of the party in that district. It's basic common sense.
Try it another way:
Apples and Bananas.
100 people are asked to choose an apple or banana for lunch.
20 are apple freaks. They swear they are going to choose apples every time. 40 are Banana freaks, they sign a contract to ALWAYS choose bananas.
The remaining 40 people are unsure what they will pick until it's lunchtime, but they ultimately split 25-15 apples to bananas.
Let's plot the chart.
The relative strength of hard core apple lovers in this cafeteria is 33% (20 of 60 hardcore, contractually obligated fruit lovers). But oddly enough, 62.5% (25 people out of 40) chose apples for lunch. 62.5 - 33 = 29.5
So our plot is (33, 29.5), which again is the upper left quadrant of our chart.
Now do the same with another cafeteria.
Forty are apple freaks, 20 are banana freaks, for an apple baseline score of 66.6%.
The rest, 40, aren't sure, but at lunchtime, some of the bananas look rotten, so they all break heavily for apples, 30-10 (75%).
Plot it out: Apple lover baseline is 66.6%, then subtract the late breaking apple choosers at 75% = -8.4, for a final plot of (66.6, -8.4), which is the lower right quadrant.
Now draw a line between the two. What do you get? A negative slope. Just like Shiva's alleged Biden vote stealing algorithm plot.
Whoa, Dr. Shiva would have to say. Apples are WAY underperforming in a strong apple-lover cafeteria! Someone must be stealing apples and giving people bananas, right?
No. It's just a normal slope when a steady distribution is plotted against a stronger or weaker baseline. It's even more obvious when the ticket splitters or the undecided fruit choosers are more evenly distributed. I chose to have the ticket splitter / fruit choosers break heavily for apples / Trump in this scenario, just to prove that in both cases, heavy R or heavy D district, with heavy ticket splitters breaking for Trump, it still has the SAME SLOPE.
CONCLUSION: Using Shiva's equation of subtracting the baseline strength from the ticket splitter strength, Trump will always underperform among ticket splitters vs. straight Republican voters.
And, Biden will always underperform among ticket splitters vs. straight Democrat voters.
And, Apples will always underperform among undecided fruit lovers when plotted against apple lovers.
I see your point, however its undeniable that there was fuckery and that votes were shaved/injected. Looking at the data streams you can see where "corrections" were made on both sides. If there was an algorithm performing a balancing function, it would make sense that corrections need to be applied to keep the numbers reasonable. But you can't just make arbitrary corrections and the corrections need to be correlated to actual votes and numbers so where do these votes come from when you are incrementing the other candidate?
There may be fuckery, all right.
But neither Dr. Shiva nor anon have proven it with this "analysis."
All they've done is plot moderate voters (i.e. ticket splitters) against strong or weak party precincts.
Are we surprised that moderate voters (at 50% Trump) vastly overperform a weak (20% GOP) district for Trump?
Or that moderate voters (at 50% Trump) vastly underperform a strong (80% GOP) district for Trump?
No. We are not. Because the relative performance is exactly what we would expect. Thus, moderate voter (ticket splitter) underperformance in strong Trump districts does not prove vote stealing, it's just exactly what we'd expect to see.
Hell. Just watch it happen on video.
Pennsylvania Vote Switch Live on CNN.,.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH3cSFki20s
Another instance caught on video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY_yFQKl43g
And another in Georgia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhjxJhAhO7Y (Trumps total dropped. 2,427,723 to 2,426,104. Right at 25 seconds)
I have seen 5 "glitch" examples. All to the Dems favor. Kinda like the 6 for 6 coin tosses for Hillary in Iowa 2016 over Bernie Sanders.
I have little doubt that some coders will be put under a bright light in some concrete room with metal doors, white walls, four chairs and some glassy eyed suits. Then we will have evidence/testimony from the programmers. That is, if they aren't Arkancided.
BTW if you want to play with some of this data, i put up a github here
https://github.com/vermiculita/expert-carnival
with some different plots I generated. I'm not yet convinced this linear pattern isn't an artifact of the analysis.
I'm convinced that the negative slope happens every single time, whether it's Trump or it's Biden, or whether it's apples vs. bananas, iphones vs. Androids.
The labels don't matter at all.
What matters is that we're plotting moderate voters (ticket splitters) vs. hardcore party precinct voters on the right side, yielding a moderate voter underperformance.
And we're plotting moderate voters vs. weak party precinct voters on the left, which yields (unsurprisingly), strong relative performance of moderates vs. the weak party stronghold.
There's nothing special going on with this type of analysis.
I responded to some other comments in the thread but hadn't gotten to yours yet. I think I agree that there is a problem with the analysis because the choice of split or straight is not independent in the sense that you have to select only one. So places where one choice dominates would have a smaller proportion of the other.
So, I did another analysis last night, which had an even stronger linear correlation (I am hoping someone can sanity check this result):
The analysis was:
X axis is (straight_r_count+split_r_count) / total_votes -- the fraction of all votes that are for trump
Y axis is straight_r_count / total_votes - split_r_count / total_votes -- the difference in fractions between straight ticket and split ticket
Here is the resulting plot:
https://github.com/vermiculita/expert-carnival/blob/master/tmp/fig3.png
I don't have great intuition for the psychology of the voter's choice between straight and split, and the difference between dem converts, independents, and republicans. Maybe this also SHOULD show a strong linearity.
I guess you could hypothesize that hard core R voters will tend to vote straight (although supposedly traditional Rs don't like trump). What the data appears to show is that the more votes trump gets overall, there's a linear decrease in the fraction that are NOT straight votes, relative to the straight ticket votes.
Since this post is gettin unwieldy I made a new post here:
https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8XQHhIo/
I think you're starting to see the flaws with this sort of "analysis." I posted this elsewhere, but do it again here for your convenience.
It doesn't matter who's data you plot, whether it's candidates for president or plotting people's opinions about iPhone vs. Android, the squishy middle will ALWAYS overperform among scarce populations of a particular stripe, and will ALWAYS underperform against heavy concentrations of rabid fans.
There's just nothing at all enlightening or useful about Dr. Shiva's graph.
How about this one though:
This is the same methodology I described above (different from shiva's)
Each plot has 2 scatter variables, the fraction of the candidate's "straight ticket" votes at a given precinct and the fraction of candidate's "individual selection" votes at a given precinct. X axis is the overall popularity of that candidate for that precinct.
I ran this for biden and trump.
Totally different results. The trump data shows 2 different slopes; the biden data shows both cohorts having the same slope.
Left plot is biden right is trump
https://github.com/vermiculita/expert-carnival/blob/master/tmp/b-vs-t.png
(see also https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8XQHhIo/looking-for-collaborators-to-ana/c/ )
You should watch the whole video. They show the plot of a different county that doesn't show any bend into a downward trend.
I don't think you really understand the X axis because you keep talking about party registration, which has absolutely no bearing here. I don't have any idea if Michigan even does party registration, but I do know that if they do, that isn't part of these graphs.
You are also engaging in mass mind reading - assuming that the only reason anyone would take a detailed ballot is because they want to vote against party in the Presidential election. If we assume that this is true, we then need to explain why it isn't true in the other counties - the ones with no up or down trend. Are the ~3% of Republicans nationwide who don't support President Trump concentrated in these 4 counties, in roughly inverse proportion to that county's tendency to vote straight party Republican ballots?
I posted the same. I am surprised how an mit doctor ( and 2 of his colleagues) did not see this basic explanation? I mean we noticed it right away when he was explaining. Yet they did not see in in hour and hours during all their preparation...
Why does the median take a sharp angle downward at around 20% republicanism?
It takes the same sharp angle downward at 20% "Democratism," too.
The point is, Biden's plot is identical to Trumps when comparing apples to apples.
Anon's reverse plot of Biden vs. Republicanism is absurd. Why should Biden's equation be different from Trumps?
I challenge you to remove all the candidate names and parties and just assign generic labels, like fruit. Apples vs. Bananas.
It'll still be the exact same slope for both, no matter what data you load in, and without anyone stealing bananas or apples.
The ultimate test is this:
Who are split ticket voters anyway? By definition, they are people who do not feel so strongly about one party or another. They will, therefore, gravitate towards the middle, or mathematically speaking 50% Biden and 50% Trump. Of course they can favor one or another somewhat, it doesn't really matter, they'll still be closer to the center than a hardcore party voter would be, right?
And when you plot a batch of moderate voters against a batch of hardcore party voters, the moderate voters will (generally) underperform versus the party, right?
Yes, of course.
And if you plot moderate 50/50 voters against a batch of weak party voters, the 50/50 crowd suddenly looks STRONGER (relatively speaking) than the weak party voters.
This shouldn't be that complex. The negative slope is NORMAL. It is reproducible with random data. Thus, there is no steal. Check that. This data doesn't PROVE there is any stealing going on. It doesn't prove anything at all.
The mirroring is because the blue and red points are essentially the same data. If 10% of the votes in an area are Red, then Blue will receive 90% of the remaining votes, minus whatever goes to other candidates (which is why the mirroring is almost, but not quite, identical).
Yes, I fully agree. At the risk of repeating my argument, it doesn't matter who's data you plot, whether it's candidates for president or plotting people's opinions about iPhone vs. Android, the squishy middle will ALWAYS overperform among scarce populations of a particular stripe, and will ALWAYS underperform against heavy concentrations of rabid fans.
There's just nothing at all enlightening or useful about Dr. Shiva's graph.
But what causes the sharp angle at 20%? There should be a constant or gradually-changing correlation. What I'm seeing here is two near-straight-line graphs. The graph on the left hovers around 0 while the graph on the right is a constant decline/incline, and there's a hard cut from one to the other.
Probably(?) just the fact that it's real data vs. hypothetical. Keep in mind this data is from Oakland County, which is the northwestern quadrant of Detroit, so it's going to be extremely Democratic.
The data is HEAVILY skewed to the left, with some precincts having nearly 0% GOP straight ticket voters, and the maximum R precinct doesn't appear to be higher than 75%.
With totally random sample data that is evenly weighted, we'd get a nearly straight line, but this is the real world, taken from a very heavy Democrat county. What we don't know is how the plots would look if there were actually some nearly pure GOP districts to the far right, which might show a similar flatline.
The more I think about it, the more it makes me wonder about the opposite conclusion - that games were being played inside those extremely pure Democrat districts to the far left... in theory, Trump should have performed better there with ticket-splitters, and Biden should have performed worse. Yet that's not the case.
This is, of course, the opposite of what Shiva concludes (he thinks votes are getting stolen from Trump precincts, but could the opposite be true?). To me it's more plausible that inside Heavy Democrat precincts, where every single poll worker is also a Democrat, there's a higher likelihood of shenanigans, which just might explain the lower performance of Trump and improved performance by Biden ticket splitters there.
Hmmmm...
As they explained in the video, you can’t explain this by saying “Republicans just don’t like Trump”. Even if that were true (it most certainly is not, he has near perfect approval ratings with Republicans), it is mathematically impossible that Republicans do not like trump IN A PERFECT FUCKING LINE.
this is awesome analysis
Someone should do suspicious counties in the other bg states, then compare their graphs to a control group of a bunch of big cities in non-bg states
Those beautiful autists... "Grandpa, tell us again how the hacker 4chan saved America"
What is the one red precinct outlier on the graph? might tell you something very important.
If Trump has 70% straight ticket in a precinct, Biden has 30% (not counting 3rd party for simplification). So, based on the graph, Trump would have a 10% deficit in per-candidate votes compared to straight ticket, giving him 60% per-candidate votes. That means Biden would have 40% per-candidate votes, or a 10% surplus compared to straight ticket.
In other words, the blue plots in the above example would be expected. This explains why the two different results appear 98% identical, but inverse. This doesn't dispel Shiva's theory, nor does it confirm it.
I was wondering if looking at the graph based on liberalism would be interesting, but I realized that would just take the above graph and mirror it left to right.
Weaponized Autism will prevail!
Why are these in data points and not linear graphs? I'm confused as to what each data point is? I understand the overall graph, but wouldn't a linear line work too?
Or is each point a unique polling station?
Each is a polling place.
This is why I performed poorly in statistics class. I don’t know what it means.
https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633_8722-103241--,00.html
Contains the results by county. This data needs to be extracted into spreadsheets for people to analyze.
Is anyone looking into the JOHN JAMES senate race in Michigan?? If these crookes stole it from the POTUS why not the critical senate race?
does this replicate throughout the country or is it limited to very specific areas?
do other areas display expected results (horizontal average)?
can this be explained by "in more Republican areas, fewer people who are willing to vote Republican are also not voting straight Republican" and "in more Republican areas, more people willing to vote Cheater are not willing to vote straight Cheater"? This seems possible.
if 3, then what explains the sharp angle near the second vertical line?
Ed: I'm a dork; I meant "vote straight ticket", it's late, other excuses
in the original video Dr. Shive explained it didn't happen everywhere
clearly this is the late evidence of "muh party switch". it so obvious even you Trumptards should be able to understand it.
SCIENCE!
This is the data I was hoping to see yesterday. There's not a chance in hell that there are heavily Republican districts with Trump underperforming -13% to -14%.
95% approval in party and Biden is a pervert communist. Come on man!
Shiva's analysis would be GREATLY improved by pulling other data sources ie. Ones not use electronic voting machines for comparison. (And not just the one example he gave in his talk). I'm not a fan of proof by induction but some induction would go a long way. Are there any states that have some counties with electronic voting and some without? Wisconsin? Georgia? Or even states that do not use electronic voting at all / we don't think we're interfered with would be an interesting comparison.
Shiva's analysis is highly compelling and I'm inclined to believe it but I would like to see it more widely applied because it is possible (but unlikely) that there is something omited that causes this bias. One of the states with an audit and recount incoming would be the easiest way to test the theory.
has anyone looked to see what a "Normal" range would look like? Hard to judge when there aren't any comparisons available
Normal range was a net 10% increase compared to other counties
I'm sorry, but hold the fucking horses. IF I have my understand of the data and analyses correct (and IF I am not an idiot) what this graph shows is essentially a mirror reflection of the same data.
The red dots represent districts plotted on the x-axis according to the percentage of straight R voters relative to straight D voters. High %R districts occur farther to the right.
Their placement (height) on the y-axis is determined by taking that same relative % of straight R voters of the district and finding the difference with the % of not-straight-ticket voters who voted for Trump.
As the red dots show, as the proportion of straight R voters to straight D voters increases, the proportion of independent Trump voters seems to lag behind that growth.
I have an issue with assuming that this is artificial because it's possible that in the total group of independent voters, their Trump voting proportion may have just grown slower for some group psychological reason. This is absolutely debatable. It's just an objection. But anyway, it doesn't matter because that's not what's causing the mirroring.
If you want to plot Biden vote performance on the same district graph, the plot points will have the same x-axis placement because you're still classifying them according to %straight R vs straight D.
Now, to figure out the y-axis for Biden voters, you take the % of straight D voters in those districts and fund the difference with the relative % of independents who voted for Biden.
BUT now note that the % of straight D voters in that district is necessarily the inverse proportion of the % of straight R voters. In other words, as we move right on the graph, the districts are having less and less straight D voters at the same time that straight R voters are growing.
Then also note that if the independent voters are lagging behind in Trump voting in a high %R district, that also means that they would be outperforming with Biden because it's also a low%D district.
Putting it into numbers will help explain. Basing this roughly on the graph, look the districts where %R is at 50%. There you see the independents voting at about -5% relative to straight R voters. That means independents were voting at 45% Trump and 55% Biden.
If you then apply those numbers to the democrats, 50% of the straight voters were choosing Biden and 55% of independents were choosing Biden, so you then see a 5% overperformance in independents. This is not because voted got taken from Trump and given to Biden. It's just because you processed the data from the other perspective.
TL;DR - This graph does not show counterbalanced manipulation. The plot points are a mirror image of each other due to an inversion in how you're looking at the same data. It's like plotting y=x and y=-x on the same graph.
Rebuttals welcome because sometimes I am stoopid.
Addendum - should be basically a mirror image, but with some flexibility where voters pick someone other than Trump/Biden. But yes - the mirroring is not significant to making a case.
If you want to play with some of this data, i put up a github here
https://github.com/vermiculita/expert-carnival
with the data from oakland county. I tried to replicate shiva's plot and also some other variations
Looks similar but are in fact different.
The mirror part isn't important - that was always implied. The important part is that this plot was made by a second party using data provided by Oakland County, showing that the plots from the video aren't faked.
Your analysis is also wrong - the Y axis is already normalized. The slope down (or up in the mirror) is the manipulation. Your "group psychology" theory requires a cause - one that only works in 4 counties across the entire state, which doesn't work at all in heavily Democrat parts of those counties, and has a strength that works proportionally to Republican percentage minus 25%
Goddamnit shiva is a lunatic. No shill here- i just have seen interviews with the man and hes ignores most normal reality. Im in MA. I would have voted for him untik he showed how he is a fucking wacko. Even if his data ect is good he cant be our face bc the man is a nutjob. Watch his vids on tbdailynews
If you told any democrat that the more republican the county the more they voted for Biden, they wouldn’t believe you.
So either: deep red counties love Biden and urban centers love Trump OR Trump won in a landslide and there was fraud.
Would love to see them try to explain the former.
Check user dirtyname or me explained why that is. Basically independants do not vote as strongly for trump as republicans in straight party ballots. Lets say straight ballots is 80pct R. But independants in that same county would be 50/50 for trump.
I'm trying to replicate the Ayyadurai charts, and I'm getting my data from MI County sites. I've done Kent and Oakland. My charts look nothing like this or Ayyadurai's.
I am getting a linear line UP for (RSP%, Trump%-RSP%). I'm using the total ballots cast as the denominator for both.
But (DSP%, Biden%-DSP%) gives me a rainbow effect - low on the ends, high in the middle.
The patterns are not identical or inverted.
Sorry this is my first post. I'm not much of a redditor but Ayyadurai's analysis was the most compelling to me and I just watched a math guy "debunking" Ayyadurai but using the wrong (x,y) values. So I tried to replicate it and i'm not getting it.
Just a thought...doesn’t this also prove the other republicans in those districts were controlled opposition? Otherwise they’d steal those votes too.
Archive link:
https://archive.is/qDeFp
The fact that the slope of the lines is identical in the + and - Y axis is indicative of an algorithm. No random scatter chart would be a mirror image of itself unless it was programmed to change votes/data.
It is possible, but highly unlikely.. like finding 2 identical snowflake patterns. The Red to the right of 40% should go up, and the Blue to the right of 40% should go down. They are inverses of one another.. Very clearly plotted.
When they find those responsible they'll claim it's a bug.
Don't accept that answer Mr President. Public punishment that all get to see.
This is what I believe China did to program the software to do.
Some one else pointed out that straight party votes with Trump under "Repubiican" would cause these results in Dominion software.
I want to know if this works in GA. That's the one they are hand recounting.
Are they even recounting MI?