Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
I took the original ratios and found the best-fit extra digits to derive an integer number of partisan vote totals for either candidate...the rounded 3-digit ratios provided always produce a fractional result when multiplied by the original raw total, which is ridiculous because there are no fractional votes.
I used an algorithm to find a partisan vote total and associated ratio with expanded digits in order to fit the significant figures provided in the raw vote totals. The way I relate it is through a simple example:
13/17 = 0.76470588235294117647058823529412...
Which is reduced to 0.765 when rounded to 3-digits.
If I know what 17 is and I start with this number 0.765 representing the ratio that is formed with 17 to produce an unknown integer less than 17 and greater than 0, I can use a best-fit algorithm to look at numbers surrounding 0.765 to find the original ratio 13/17 to a greater precision and the likely integer placed in the original numerator 13.
This is easy to see when you look at the result 0.765*17 = 13.005 which hints at where the result will point towards.
The interval of numbers used to find the true value pair is bounded by the smallest and largest 'k'-digit floating point numbers that round to the 3-digit value of 0.765 .
The more significant figures that the original ratio denominator has, which is always the raw total provided, the more precise one can get the missing values due to the rules governing rational numbers and integers.
Awesome detective work. There's such a mountain of evidence of fraud by now that leftists look like total fools continuing to say there's 'no evidence'. If they were interested in fairness and democracy wouldn't they be interested in accurate voting? Their behavior really shows which side is good and which side is evil. Evil tries to hide from being exposed and good isn't afraid of exposure. The right-side wasn't even afraid of the Russia hoax, but they spent 3 freakin years on it with zero evidence while never investigating their own Russian dossier involvement, and they impeached Trump for being a whistleblower over Biden's corruption in Ukraine and still never investigated Biden, but instead now cheated to vote for him. But with massive piles of evidence of fraud they have zero interest in talking about it, because they obviously caused the fraud. Such sick and disgusting evil from these hypocrites.
sorry dude...I have been a little busy with a few other projects to get this program translated...in a day or so I might have some free time to get that done, and thanks for the reminder
When there are 3,013,968 votes then it goes to 3,104,080 votes?
That meant Trump had a range of 1,692,342 to 1,695,358 votes, and went to a range of 1,715,003 to 1,718,109 votes. Biden had a range of 1,276,414 to 1,279,430 votes and went to a range of 1,342,514 to 1,345,620 votes.
There was 90,112 votes to spread around (88,850 using Biden+Trump's share) to fill the range of 19,645 to 25,767 votes needed for Trump, and 63,083 to 69,205 votes needed for Biden to make it from 3,013,969 (0.562:0.424)
to 3,104,080 (0.553:0.433). So this would appear to be ok.
What am I missing or what are you missing, please?
OK, I see... the spot highlighted points out a point in the data where simultaneously over 16k votes were transferred from Trump to Biden, at least that is what is indicated by the delta columns on the far right of the images.
The change isn't precise but it is a significant apparent 'glitch' in the data, that corresponds to a time stamp of 11:30 PM on Nov. 4 (The timestamp I used in the post is wrong.)
This graphical signature doesn't happen a lot in the data, and there was greater individual vote loses all around, but the function of a program like Hammer and Scorecard is to switch votes from each candidate and this is precisely what we see here at this point.
For a better interpretation of the graph, the blue line maps the change in the Trump vote count and the orange maps the change in the Biden vote count.
But I walked you through the numbers of exactly how it could have happened without a glitch or switch when there are 3,013,968 votes then it goes to 3,104,080 votes
So I don't mean to be rude but what are you talking about please
That time interval that you are referring to isn't the one being highlighted...those timestamps have a positive change from 3.013 million to 3.104 million...notice the spot on the graph where the blue line has a negative parabolic shape and the orange line has a positive parabolic shape at precisely the same point, this occurs at the highlighted timestamp in the csv file. The difference from the previous frame at the highlighted point is -17k for Trump and it is +16k for Biden. The cross-over is the switch, with a buffer for normal growth metrics.
The time intervals that you are pointing at aren't the same as the one I was pointing, which incidentally was translated wrong above because it isn't 9:30 AM it is 11:14 PM.
Nice eye...I put the arrow in the wrong place...the real change was a few frames back...I took that screenshot while I was half asleep...the arrow is pointing to the wrong value in the JSON that is all...my mistake.
These are real number though...all I did to calculate the new ratios was find the best-fit ratio for a denominator containing the raw vote total that produces an integer numerator raw partisan total, of which matches the truncated 3-digit ratios provided...the raw vote total is almost always unique enough that the real ratios can be derived within a relatively high precision, less than the number of significant figures in the raw vote total.
I put together a spreadsheet to help you understand what I think that rude zip person was getting at, -- but also, using zip's methodology to additionally break down the 17k anomaly. https://gofile.io/d/WYBsAz
Did you actually intend to highlight the PA:2020-11-04T04:08:51Z 17k source transaction? If so, perhaps zip thought you were pointing out that one as an anomaly. All I think rude-zip-person was saying is that the lowest possible share values that would round to the Edison numbers would result in a lowest-possible added vote diff (highlighted in yellow) that would fit inside the cumulative added vote count (highlight in green), therefore THAT transaction is not anomalous.
I spotted what seems to be a problem with your best-fit method (highlight in purple). It settled on 0.5625 which would round up, not down to Edison's 0.562 .... are you assuming Edison values are chopped/truncated/floor/whatever... or rounded-from-half? Rude-zip-person thinks rounded and almost gets it right though the numbers quoted indicate a lack-of-decimal precision problem too. (Used 0.561499?) For 0.562 the inclusive range would be 0.5615 to 0.562499999999...
That said, the 17k shown as three transactions in the next section of the spreadsheet is indeed odd.
(1) Why send an update with only 54 votes?
(2) Is this the result of modifying the shares or the underlying numbers? With those ratios (T=0.566 B=0.42 --> T=0.56 B=0.426) I can imagine someone thinking, "Let's move that last 6 from Trump to Biden." But no, that would result in the next transaction 'stealing' those votes back again and it looks like a normal distribution. So it must have been the underlying numbers.
(3) I wonder if the cumulative vote total (2984522) was incorrect. If it was typed in by a human and one or more digits were mistyped, meaning the added votes was actually greater than 54. what could they be? Out of time right now but I will experiment.
I always suggest text posts for collaborative work because you can edit the text to fix links and typing errors in text, add new stuff. Thanks for your due diligence.
I agree man and I tried to explain that to him, because at first I didn't even know that I got the timestamp wrong...I used the assumption that they were rounded to the nearest 3-digits...I followed up with a massive array of all possible 3-digit rounded values up to a (k+3)-th digit starting from 0.XX(X-1)4444...445 all the way up to 0.XXX4444...444 with (k+3) digit increments, and I multiplied that array against the raw vote total, which crucially has a (k+3) number of sig figs than 3, and I sorted the array in both ascending and descending with respect to the fractional part of the new partisan totals...I then compared the answers with the largest fractional part, which would look something like this A.XX(X-1)999...9999 to the answers with the smallest fractional part which looks something like this A.XXX000...0000 to find the best fit integer-ratio pair...if they didn't line up I used a comparator to find the terms that did line up to the (k)th digit...crucially speaking ALL of them ended up pointing at a simpler ratio, and we know numbers were always increasing in the NYT edison timeseries, as can be noted by the irregular time intervals.
I am going to check out your spreadsheet after I get home today because I am curious about your feedback...he didn't really get under my skin I just hadn't slept in 3 days up to that point...my point here is to only help.
Innocent explanation could be that someone mis-attributed these votes to Trump and then fixed their mistake. We don't know that this glitch was malicious, but it needs to be explained.
This is a direct raw data source from the Edison aggregator and I can't image who would have the authority there to change those values...that leaves the source voting machine or its interface with the data company as the place where a discrepancy emerges.
The Dominion system is the machine that automatically scans the ballots and tallies the vote totals and mistakes by staff or otherwise is not going to result in a vote total changing after the reporting interval but before.
Once it is reported how do they retract data in the report, and who has the authority in the Dominion or local poll worker staff to do that?
The chain of custody is easy to find out, but the real question to ask is who has the proper chain of command to correct 'mistakes' in that custody and how do we prevent mistakes from becoming abuses?
Can I suggest an alternative theory that is more realistic to me as an IT guy? Here goes:
I don't believe the news networks are deleting their election night streams, because they are hiding vote rigging by Dominion. Could be, but unlikely.
A more realistic thing to hide would be if some central Dominion machines were connected to the internet and were providing a direct raw feed of tabulated numbers to the aggregator that the news networks used.
Imagine if someone actually fucked up, caught their mistake, switched votes over and the reason you can see it in the data is because the datastream was coming straight from the Dominion machines and not going through the proper channels.
I worked as a journalist for two years and if I was doing a livestream of election results, I would totally ask for this kind of access even knowing that I was going to get a "no, this could be illegal" reply, just for the possibility of getting results earlier than everyone else.
Unreal, it is everywhere we look, you dont even have to look under a rock, the fraud just JUMPS right in in front of you!
BASELESS!!!!
You got the time wrong, T04:14:30 is hh:mm:ss. Should be 11:14 PM EST.
damn, nice catch!
Post .xls pls
It looks like a json file to me.
Pic is excel/openoffice
LOL sorry I was looking at the json data. But good call wanting that, I must of skipped over that.
How did you modify the ratios?
I took the original ratios and found the best-fit extra digits to derive an integer number of partisan vote totals for either candidate...the rounded 3-digit ratios provided always produce a fractional result when multiplied by the original raw total, which is ridiculous because there are no fractional votes.
I used an algorithm to find a partisan vote total and associated ratio with expanded digits in order to fit the significant figures provided in the raw vote totals. The way I relate it is through a simple example:
13/17 = 0.76470588235294117647058823529412...
Which is reduced to 0.765 when rounded to 3-digits.
If I know what 17 is and I start with this number 0.765 representing the ratio that is formed with 17 to produce an unknown integer less than 17 and greater than 0, I can use a best-fit algorithm to look at numbers surrounding 0.765 to find the original ratio 13/17 to a greater precision and the likely integer placed in the original numerator 13.
This is easy to see when you look at the result 0.765*17 = 13.005 which hints at where the result will point towards.
The interval of numbers used to find the true value pair is bounded by the smallest and largest 'k'-digit floating point numbers that round to the 3-digit value of 0.765 .
The more significant figures that the original ratio denominator has, which is always the raw total provided, the more precise one can get the missing values due to the rules governing rational numbers and integers.
"there are no fractional votes" how they convinced people that to store it like this is better I have no idea
I'm guessing you used the results and tables from "Fraction Magic" ?
OpenOffice, Matlab, Notepad++, and Paint.net
I'm going to look that up though because I have never heard of that...I am a bit of a hermit.
Video of Dems stealing an election in real-time
video is from 2016?
Awesome detective work. There's such a mountain of evidence of fraud by now that leftists look like total fools continuing to say there's 'no evidence'. If they were interested in fairness and democracy wouldn't they be interested in accurate voting? Their behavior really shows which side is good and which side is evil. Evil tries to hide from being exposed and good isn't afraid of exposure. The right-side wasn't even afraid of the Russia hoax, but they spent 3 freakin years on it with zero evidence while never investigating their own Russian dossier involvement, and they impeached Trump for being a whistleblower over Biden's corruption in Ukraine and still never investigated Biden, but instead now cheated to vote for him. But with massive piles of evidence of fraud they have zero interest in talking about it, because they obviously caused the fraud. Such sick and disgusting evil from these hypocrites.
Any Data on what we should be looking for in GA provided we get a good recount?
Here is a link to the data that I compiled for every state and DC:
https://gofile.io/d/nYucMa
Thanks. With the best-fit via Matlab you're the smartest bear in the room! Plz with original timestamp string
I just updated it and I am about to post it...started catching up on sleep last night so I'm a little lagging behind...thanks for the kind words
Did you ever make a Python version of the script? I'm curious I know Python a lot more than Matlab
sorry dude...I have been a little busy with a few other projects to get this program translated...in a day or so I might have some free time to get that done, and thanks for the reminder
Impressive
Could you explain what the issue is?
When there are 3,013,968 votes then it goes to 3,104,080 votes?
That meant Trump had a range of 1,692,342 to 1,695,358 votes, and went to a range of 1,715,003 to 1,718,109 votes. Biden had a range of 1,276,414 to 1,279,430 votes and went to a range of 1,342,514 to 1,345,620 votes.
There was 90,112 votes to spread around (88,850 using Biden+Trump's share) to fill the range of 19,645 to 25,767 votes needed for Trump, and 63,083 to 69,205 votes needed for Biden to make it from 3,013,969 (0.562:0.424) to 3,104,080 (0.553:0.433). So this would appear to be ok.
What am I missing or what are you missing, please?
I'm a little confused about the question. Here is the original data in CSV form https://gofile.io/d/lF8PpL .
I am about to post a more updated version on this website for PA and every other state.
You're confused about my question and I'm confused what you're confused about
You seem to think there's an issue with the votes at the spot you highlighted?
What's the issue?
OK, I see... the spot highlighted points out a point in the data where simultaneously over 16k votes were transferred from Trump to Biden, at least that is what is indicated by the delta columns on the far right of the images.
The change isn't precise but it is a significant apparent 'glitch' in the data, that corresponds to a time stamp of 11:30 PM on Nov. 4 (The timestamp I used in the post is wrong.)
This graphical signature doesn't happen a lot in the data, and there was greater individual vote loses all around, but the function of a program like Hammer and Scorecard is to switch votes from each candidate and this is precisely what we see here at this point.
For a better interpretation of the graph, the blue line maps the change in the Trump vote count and the orange maps the change in the Biden vote count.
But I walked you through the numbers of exactly how it could have happened without a glitch or switch when there are 3,013,968 votes then it goes to 3,104,080 votes
So I don't mean to be rude but what are you talking about please
That time interval that you are referring to isn't the one being highlighted...those timestamps have a positive change from 3.013 million to 3.104 million...notice the spot on the graph where the blue line has a negative parabolic shape and the orange line has a positive parabolic shape at precisely the same point, this occurs at the highlighted timestamp in the csv file. The difference from the previous frame at the highlighted point is -17k for Trump and it is +16k for Biden. The cross-over is the switch, with a buffer for normal growth metrics.
The time intervals that you are pointing at aren't the same as the one I was pointing, which incidentally was translated wrong above because it isn't 9:30 AM it is 11:14 PM.
You put a big arrow to the voting at 3,104,080 votes
That's what I addressed
So please, what the heck are you talking about
I explained to you how the votes aren't problematic
Could you address how they are using actual numbers
Nice eye...I put the arrow in the wrong place...the real change was a few frames back...I took that screenshot while I was half asleep...the arrow is pointing to the wrong value in the JSON that is all...my mistake.
These are real number though...all I did to calculate the new ratios was find the best-fit ratio for a denominator containing the raw vote total that produces an integer numerator raw partisan total, of which matches the truncated 3-digit ratios provided...the raw vote total is almost always unique enough that the real ratios can be derived within a relatively high precision, less than the number of significant figures in the raw vote total.
I put together a spreadsheet to help you understand what I think that rude zip person was getting at, -- but also, using zip's methodology to additionally break down the 17k anomaly. https://gofile.io/d/WYBsAz
Did you actually intend to highlight the PA:2020-11-04T04:08:51Z 17k source transaction? If so, perhaps zip thought you were pointing out that one as an anomaly. All I think rude-zip-person was saying is that the lowest possible share values that would round to the Edison numbers would result in a lowest-possible added vote diff (highlighted in yellow) that would fit inside the cumulative added vote count (highlight in green), therefore THAT transaction is not anomalous.
I spotted what seems to be a problem with your best-fit method (highlight in purple). It settled on 0.5625 which would round up, not down to Edison's 0.562 .... are you assuming Edison values are chopped/truncated/floor/whatever... or rounded-from-half? Rude-zip-person thinks rounded and almost gets it right though the numbers quoted indicate a lack-of-decimal precision problem too. (Used 0.561499?) For 0.562 the inclusive range would be 0.5615 to 0.562499999999...
That said, the 17k shown as three transactions in the next section of the spreadsheet is indeed odd.
I always suggest text posts for collaborative work because you can edit the text to fix links and typing errors in text, add new stuff. Thanks for your due diligence.
I agree man and I tried to explain that to him, because at first I didn't even know that I got the timestamp wrong...I used the assumption that they were rounded to the nearest 3-digits...I followed up with a massive array of all possible 3-digit rounded values up to a (k+3)-th digit starting from 0.XX(X-1)4444...445 all the way up to 0.XXX4444...444 with (k+3) digit increments, and I multiplied that array against the raw vote total, which crucially has a (k+3) number of sig figs than 3, and I sorted the array in both ascending and descending with respect to the fractional part of the new partisan totals...I then compared the answers with the largest fractional part, which would look something like this A.XX(X-1)999...9999 to the answers with the smallest fractional part which looks something like this A.XXX000...0000 to find the best fit integer-ratio pair...if they didn't line up I used a comparator to find the terms that did line up to the (k)th digit...crucially speaking ALL of them ended up pointing at a simpler ratio, and we know numbers were always increasing in the NYT edison timeseries, as can be noted by the irregular time intervals.
I am going to check out your spreadsheet after I get home today because I am curious about your feedback...he didn't really get under my skin I just hadn't slept in 3 days up to that point...my point here is to only help.
Get this autist some more tendies!
Innocent explanation could be that someone mis-attributed these votes to Trump and then fixed their mistake. We don't know that this glitch was malicious, but it needs to be explained.
There's nothing innocent, when you look at the spreadsheet, the only way to rig an election on the fly is to use fractional math to re-assign votes.
His tabulation shows it clearly as does this video https://youtu.be/Fob-AGgZn44?t=4
This is a direct raw data source from the Edison aggregator and I can't image who would have the authority there to change those values...that leaves the source voting machine or its interface with the data company as the place where a discrepancy emerges.
The Dominion system is the machine that automatically scans the ballots and tallies the vote totals and mistakes by staff or otherwise is not going to result in a vote total changing after the reporting interval but before.
Once it is reported how do they retract data in the report, and who has the authority in the Dominion or local poll worker staff to do that?
The chain of custody is easy to find out, but the real question to ask is who has the proper chain of command to correct 'mistakes' in that custody and how do we prevent mistakes from becoming abuses?
Can I suggest an alternative theory that is more realistic to me as an IT guy? Here goes:
I don't believe the news networks are deleting their election night streams, because they are hiding vote rigging by Dominion. Could be, but unlikely.
A more realistic thing to hide would be if some central Dominion machines were connected to the internet and were providing a direct raw feed of tabulated numbers to the aggregator that the news networks used.
Imagine if someone actually fucked up, caught their mistake, switched votes over and the reason you can see it in the data is because the datastream was coming straight from the Dominion machines and not going through the proper channels.
I worked as a journalist for two years and if I was doing a livestream of election results, I would totally ask for this kind of access even knowing that I was going to get a "no, this could be illegal" reply, just for the possibility of getting results earlier than everyone else.
Z suffiix means time is UTC, not Zulu Time. See ISO 8601.TIL Zulu Time and UTC are the same damn thing.
Damn, I always thought UTC was Zulu time!
And you were right! I just didn’t know!
lol
We got 'em red handed!
/Pretending I know wtf you're talking about.