Video of current findings at: https://rumble.com/vb2yet-virginia-algorithmic-fraud-preliminary-findings.html
At this point, I've got precinct level data for virginia and nebraska and am planning to see if I can figure out a better pattern to how/if any votes are being stolen from the smaller & heavily republican areas. I've driven through rural America enough to know that it seems pretty unlikely that so many of these rural counties could like the president 5 or 10 points less than the other republicans.
If people would actually provide the data and formulas used then people can correct them or verify them.
Tomorrow the liberals will be checking the working out and undermining legitimate fraud concerns showing the working out for this particular case being wrong. Sometimes this happens by accident but they will also be deliberately trying to poison the well with noise as well basically stuffing junk into the foundations that can't support the weight of the building built upon it. We need to source the best building materials. Not anything that anyone conveniently comes in and provides on a silver platter, too easy. Watch out for traps.
Don't feel bad, it took me a while to notice this as well and it's usually my job to do that.
Also in that thread I posted look at my methodology trying to simulate and reproduce a result. That's a very important skill and technique that I hope other Science Pede's will take up to empower us. You can skip some of the maths that way just trying it and seeing how it turns out.
I don't have easy access to all the data but sharing analytical skills is crucial. Just being able to run a plot like this is also really useful. Sharing is caring. Skill dump is as vital as any other effort. I can teach coal miners to code but PhD students and journalists are a lost cause.
Shiva socials people by choosing people with hyper symmetrical faces that we automatically trust. My face is like a crooked chimney. I love the guy, I worked with a lot of Indians like him but you have to understand in their culture its a different language, it's all showmanship and being stolid. Even if you're decent you have to do that there to get ahead and no one likes to morally quibble because otherwise you doom not only yourself but those around you and you have to do what you have to do to get ahead.
Regardless remember that teacher who said for you what the assignment has to be to be a CS? I'm CS. I don't lower the standard because I am lonely, it is lonely though.
I've got to respect Benny Smith and Dr Shiva for their trickery. I like it to be honest. This is what we need. We are superior because of our humility and they tested it. They made us stronger and more immune to trickery. If we can detect theirs we pass, we're better than them and that's what you need to better the dems. We can detect that of the dems. We cannot then we fail any test and if we fail that we fail the dems and what hope do we have to pass the test from he who is God if we can't pass those of those who think they're God? They are agents of God even though as an atheist I don't believe in it testing our worth.
Anyway the cheating methods of the left isn't that easy to detect. They work below the detection threshold on purpose. We need to up our game. If we could not detect such an easy fraud they provided us then who are we? Are we worthy enough to detect the fraud of our enemy?
I know it's daunting but you have me on your side and I have you on my side. They're making it difficult as can be. Challenge accepted.
presdifffromparty = presperformance - partyprecinctperf // y = n - x
precinctinfo['precinctrep'] = partyprecinctperf // x
...
jsondict['x'] = precinctinfo['precinctrep'] // x
jsondict['y'] = presdifffromparty // y
Looks like the same problem.
Instead try...
jsondict['y'] = presperformance
I could probably give some indentation / whitespace and naming advice but not really critical.
Just stuff like...
[ precinct.get('precinct')]
Should be...
[precinct.get('precinct')]
And a lot of inconsistency. I usually set my IDE to show white space and tabs. It looks as though at least two people worked on this or parts were copies in or multiple editors were used. I see double spaces, then quad spaces, then tabs.
Consider using _ to separate words in variable names. For example bunchofwordssquashedtogether is not particularly easy on the eye.
I'll look at it closer tomorrow to understand exactly what these colums are and how to properly put them to use (full define them so I know exactly how they relate to what's on ballot, maybe dig around for a ballot image too). Saying that it looks like individual names so it's a bit different. I guess the concept of straight R is in the code. Names don't have party but I can google it. I'll probably just plot all the candidates performance first.
Note that this data is limited you may not be able to detect fraud with it even if these is fraud.
Ha! Hopefully you're on the right side of the Balmer curve.
I had my editor crash in the middle and switched so that's probably the spacing issue. I was also copying from the VA work. That was even dirtier because I got it wrong so many times before it worked and I'm doing this on the side of my job.
Also, take a look at the pure numbers in a spreadsheet from the state. For the counties this method has said there was shenanigans and you'll see the trend by looking at Trump vs. the worst of the Senate/House candidate in each precinct. That's how I originally figured out.
The real problem is that a lot of this analysis isn't necessarily going to show anything. You might get lucky and it might turn out that one country cheated or was flipped and it blurts out as a big anomaly.
The level of fraud you need to perform to flip an election for a state where it's naturally close isn't necessarily something that's going to show up on most statistical analysis.
To make a simple point, shuffle all the point on your graph randomly 1%. Does the new graph tell you anything different? Would you even know anything was different if you hadn't see the original graph? When you think of it like that then you can understand the problem we're dealing with.
We still need to look at it and this is a start but it's also magnification X1.5 and we probably need to go to X10000 to fully uncover the full scope of fraud and corruption.
If there's cheating and a state swings over to another candidate by a few tens of a percent to a percent then that might indicate how small your fraud indicator has to be.
Numerically and statistically speaking if you have illegals voting in the election in a significant proportion (merely a tenth of a percent can be significant) there's no reason that would register in an obvious way in numerical analysis.
The lawyers will likely have much better data to work with, for example there's no reason why they should not be furnished with a database of all registered voters and the individual votes as well as whatever it is the poll workers would have access to including the physical ballots.
A single snapshot of 2020 and the results on its own is only of limited use. It might however gleam something but if not you get a lay of the land.
Comparing the relative performance of candidates is useful any interesting though it might not reveal anything you can be sure is fraud. People have already found in some data sets it appears Biden got lots of votes from people who apparently only filled that part of the ballot which if true on its own is already very suspect.
It's more useful to compare this data with 2016 and other datasets like populations for each region, registered voters, etc.
Most of the cheating I suspect though will be in cities or densely populated locations. In those it's a natural haystack you can bury your needle into.
Realistically they want to take a few thousand ballots at random for the state and try to track down the voter.
If I were making algorithms to cheat in the election they I would probably do something like take the top 50 closest states where Trump wins then flip them. Basically spread out the risk so it's hard to detect.
I believe a lot of the cheating however is not really grandoise. It's just things like optimising for mail-in ballots, fiddling the rules, etc.
If I was going to cheat in this election then I'd use multiple approaches including BLM. It's a criminal syndicate. Basically criminals, it's an anti-police movement so go figure. The criminal system has an underground network that can reach tens of millions or Americans or more. Compared to peddling crack cocaine a bit of ballot harvesting is a breeze and for someone who wants to buy the election it's far more cost effective than directly donating to the campaign to instead donate to organised crime. If organised crime can organise all these riots then having loads of ballots ready to drop late at night all for Biden is an absolute breeze.
I'd also look for USPS workers disgruntled about reforms to make it profitable and who want to get at Trump and who likely already to some degree have a network of employees or union or whatever.
There are two massive vulnerabilities they can very easily and subtly exploit. First is that they were allowed to collect after deadline knowing how much to make up for. Secondly is that they know mail-in goes more to Biden. The entire design of the election system and the rules changes for COVID-19 actually broke it. If they know after 12 mail-in ballots likely favour Biden then it's really easy to just optimise for that and accept as many as possible. They can also store them somewhere secret as a buffer, sorted buffer, sort them by region and proportion of democrats in said region then slowly release then in batches as needed.
This is actually just a standard CS practice. Buffering and priority queue.
What I could probably do is write a small simulation of an election system that can do things like this just to see what kinds of patterns I get.
Much nicer demonstration of county examples in the vid. You can see the baseline or natural tendency is to have sparse clusters and fairly flat trends with some outliers. Then the linear bias shows up and it's pretty glaring.
Fairfax County, VA does not allow straight party votes. I call BS on this graph and the whole post.
I am familiar with the Dr Shiva analysis in Michigan and it is compelling - there is more than enough reason to pursue it. You can download the data he used from Michigan election websites and see the breakdown of votes between straight ticket and per-candidate ballots.
The entire premise of this "graph" is that straight ticket voting is an option and show up in the results data. It is not an option in Fairfax County, VA.
Unless OP provides direct references to source data and an explanation of the charting procedure, this should be ignored as misinformation.
In Michigan (I have read this, not first hand experience), there is literally a place on the ballot where you can mark All Republican or All Democrat and skip all the individual names. This is “straight ticket”. Or, you can mark candidates individually. Their downloadable results break the votes out explicitly by which of these types of votes were cast.
Virginia does not do that. You can just mark each candidate.
And you can compare votes for republican senators and house to approximate. At the risk of being doxxed I know first-hand. That being said shiva's video is a cluster, he needs to release data and code because what he said in the video is confusing if you try to replicate.
Right. I didn't vote down ballot Rs in VA in 2016. I did this time. You can substitute republican straight ticket with votes for the republican senate candidate.
"The entire premise of this "graph" is that straight ticket voting is an option and show up in the results data. It is not an option in Fairfax County, VA."
The data in Virginia at the precinct level is showing that for only certain counties, the more republican the precinct is, the more likely the republicans were not to vote for the President.
The more Republican the precinct, the easier it would be to "hide" the stolen votes without the voters noticing.
Watch the bumble video where I walk through all the counties and explain what the graphs are showing throughout the state.
The linear pattern sticks out like a sore thumb when you look through the entire state.
this still makes no sense to me, wouldn't ticket splitters reduce in absolute numbers the more republican a preccinct is in total volume? independent and democrat ticket splitters going more for trump then an ever more declining republicn splitter group deviating from him
the y-axis is relative to straight republican. if you watch the video i posted, it shows in virginia what a bunch of counties where the algorithm wasn't running look like. For example Henrico and Virginia Beach show no signs of the algorithm.
This is pointing out that the "volume" of republicans choosing to vote against the president follows a linear pattern of growth as the precincts become more republican in select counties.
The linear pattern is the problem not that some republicans split tickets.
In the rumble video, I show at least a dozen counties where the republicans went against the president, but it wasn't in a linear pattern.
This info raises suspicion into those counties. It sure looks like software was used to systematically take votes away from the president in places that they would be less likely to be missed.
Yes it would, but this is showing that you are proportionality more likely to be a ticket splitter if you live in a republican neighborhood. That is straight line nature is what is being disputed with this analysis.
Update: New post on Nebraska here: https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8cBUnxd/ne-2nd-congressional-algorithmic/c/
Video of current findings at: https://rumble.com/vb2yet-virginia-algorithmic-fraud-preliminary-findings.html At this point, I've got precinct level data for virginia and nebraska and am planning to see if I can figure out a better pattern to how/if any votes are being stolen from the smaller & heavily republican areas. I've driven through rural America enough to know that it seems pretty unlikely that so many of these rural counties could like the president 5 or 10 points less than the other republicans.
Can you give the formula for each axis?
If Y is the percent of independent votes Trump got minus the proportion of straight republican votes he got then this graph is just Y = -X.
Look at this...
http://fooplot.com/#W3sidHlwZSI6MCwiZXEiOiJ4JTcteCUzIiwiY29sb3IiOiIjMDAwMDAwIn0seyJ0eXBlIjowLCJlcSI6Ii14IiwiY29sb3IiOiIjMDAwMDAwIn0seyJ0eXBlIjowLCJlcSI6Iih4JTcteCUzKS14IiwiY29sb3IiOiIjMDAwMDAwIn0seyJ0eXBlIjowLCJlcSI6IjAiLCJjb2xvciI6IiMwMDAwMDAifSx7InR5cGUiOjEwMDAsIndpbmRvdyI6WyItNjAuMTgwODAxMTI0NTcyNjciLCI5MS4xNTkxMTcyNTA0NDI0MiIsIi00Ni42NzQ3MzY3ODExMjAyNyIsIjQ2LjQ1NzUyMDY4MDQyNzQ3Il0sInNob3dncmlkIjowLCJzaG93YXhlcyI6MCwic2hvd2xhYmVscyI6MH1d
Dr Shiva shows in his slide that Y = F(?) - X.
Please see a detailed explanation here...
https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8c4hnss/x/c/1BjYaPNPlM
If people would actually provide the data and formulas used then people can correct them or verify them.
Tomorrow the liberals will be checking the working out and undermining legitimate fraud concerns showing the working out for this particular case being wrong. Sometimes this happens by accident but they will also be deliberately trying to poison the well with noise as well basically stuffing junk into the foundations that can't support the weight of the building built upon it. We need to source the best building materials. Not anything that anyone conveniently comes in and provides on a silver platter, too easy. Watch out for traps.
Don't feel bad, it took me a while to notice this as well and it's usually my job to do that.
Also in that thread I posted look at my methodology trying to simulate and reproduce a result. That's a very important skill and technique that I hope other Science Pede's will take up to empower us. You can skip some of the maths that way just trying it and seeing how it turns out.
I don't have easy access to all the data but sharing analytical skills is crucial. Just being able to run a plot like this is also really useful. Sharing is caring. Skill dump is as vital as any other effort. I can teach coal miners to code but PhD students and journalists are a lost cause.
All data is from Virginia's official site: https://results.elections.virginia.gov/vaelections/2020%20November%20General/Site/Presidential.html
My calculations from that information are in this file: https://ufile.io/912fxt4m
I have good evidence this method works in Nebraska as well.
Shiva socials people by choosing people with hyper symmetrical faces that we automatically trust. My face is like a crooked chimney. I love the guy, I worked with a lot of Indians like him but you have to understand in their culture its a different language, it's all showmanship and being stolid. Even if you're decent you have to do that there to get ahead and no one likes to morally quibble because otherwise you doom not only yourself but those around you and you have to do what you have to do to get ahead.
Regardless remember that teacher who said for you what the assignment has to be to be a CS? I'm CS. I don't lower the standard because I am lonely, it is lonely though.
I've got to respect Benny Smith and Dr Shiva for their trickery. I like it to be honest. This is what we need. We are superior because of our humility and they tested it. They made us stronger and more immune to trickery. If we can detect theirs we pass, we're better than them and that's what you need to better the dems. We can detect that of the dems. We cannot then we fail any test and if we fail that we fail the dems and what hope do we have to pass the test from he who is God if we can't pass those of those who think they're God? They are agents of God even though as an atheist I don't believe in it testing our worth.
Anyway the cheating methods of the left isn't that easy to detect. They work below the detection threshold on purpose. We need to up our game. If we could not detect such an easy fraud they provided us then who are we? Are we worthy enough to detect the fraud of our enemy?
I know it's daunting but you have me on your side and I have you on my side. They're making it difficult as can be. Challenge accepted.
I'll publish easier to review of my whole process when done with Nebraska
New post is here: https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8cBUnxd/ne-2nd-congressional-algorithmic/c/
I included a download to the python code. This is same method I used for Virginia but cleaned up quite a bit. Can you review?
I'm a bit drunk but...
...
Looks like the same problem.
Instead try...
I could probably give some indentation / whitespace and naming advice but not really critical.
Just stuff like...
Should be...
And a lot of inconsistency. I usually set my IDE to show white space and tabs. It looks as though at least two people worked on this or parts were copies in or multiple editors were used. I see double spaces, then quad spaces, then tabs.
Consider using _ to separate words in variable names. For example bunchofwordssquashedtogether is not particularly easy on the eye.
I'll look at it closer tomorrow to understand exactly what these colums are and how to properly put them to use (full define them so I know exactly how they relate to what's on ballot, maybe dig around for a ballot image too). Saying that it looks like individual names so it's a bit different. I guess the concept of straight R is in the code. Names don't have party but I can google it. I'll probably just plot all the candidates performance first.
Note that this data is limited you may not be able to detect fraud with it even if these is fraud.
Ha! Hopefully you're on the right side of the Balmer curve.
I had my editor crash in the middle and switched so that's probably the spacing issue. I was also copying from the VA work. That was even dirtier because I got it wrong so many times before it worked and I'm doing this on the side of my job.
FYI, i was able to get New Hampshire data and it doesnt show anything.
https://rumble.com/vb4c2b-new-hampshire-by-precinct.html
Also, take a look at the pure numbers in a spreadsheet from the state. For the counties this method has said there was shenanigans and you'll see the trend by looking at Trump vs. the worst of the Senate/House candidate in each precinct. That's how I originally figured out.
The real problem is that a lot of this analysis isn't necessarily going to show anything. You might get lucky and it might turn out that one country cheated or was flipped and it blurts out as a big anomaly.
The level of fraud you need to perform to flip an election for a state where it's naturally close isn't necessarily something that's going to show up on most statistical analysis.
To make a simple point, shuffle all the point on your graph randomly 1%. Does the new graph tell you anything different? Would you even know anything was different if you hadn't see the original graph? When you think of it like that then you can understand the problem we're dealing with.
We still need to look at it and this is a start but it's also magnification X1.5 and we probably need to go to X10000 to fully uncover the full scope of fraud and corruption.
If there's cheating and a state swings over to another candidate by a few tens of a percent to a percent then that might indicate how small your fraud indicator has to be.
Numerically and statistically speaking if you have illegals voting in the election in a significant proportion (merely a tenth of a percent can be significant) there's no reason that would register in an obvious way in numerical analysis.
The lawyers will likely have much better data to work with, for example there's no reason why they should not be furnished with a database of all registered voters and the individual votes as well as whatever it is the poll workers would have access to including the physical ballots.
A single snapshot of 2020 and the results on its own is only of limited use. It might however gleam something but if not you get a lay of the land.
Comparing the relative performance of candidates is useful any interesting though it might not reveal anything you can be sure is fraud. People have already found in some data sets it appears Biden got lots of votes from people who apparently only filled that part of the ballot which if true on its own is already very suspect.
It's more useful to compare this data with 2016 and other datasets like populations for each region, registered voters, etc.
Most of the cheating I suspect though will be in cities or densely populated locations. In those it's a natural haystack you can bury your needle into.
Realistically they want to take a few thousand ballots at random for the state and try to track down the voter.
If I were making algorithms to cheat in the election they I would probably do something like take the top 50 closest states where Trump wins then flip them. Basically spread out the risk so it's hard to detect.
I believe a lot of the cheating however is not really grandoise. It's just things like optimising for mail-in ballots, fiddling the rules, etc.
If I was going to cheat in this election then I'd use multiple approaches including BLM. It's a criminal syndicate. Basically criminals, it's an anti-police movement so go figure. The criminal system has an underground network that can reach tens of millions or Americans or more. Compared to peddling crack cocaine a bit of ballot harvesting is a breeze and for someone who wants to buy the election it's far more cost effective than directly donating to the campaign to instead donate to organised crime. If organised crime can organise all these riots then having loads of ballots ready to drop late at night all for Biden is an absolute breeze.
I'd also look for USPS workers disgruntled about reforms to make it profitable and who want to get at Trump and who likely already to some degree have a network of employees or union or whatever.
There are two massive vulnerabilities they can very easily and subtly exploit. First is that they were allowed to collect after deadline knowing how much to make up for. Secondly is that they know mail-in goes more to Biden. The entire design of the election system and the rules changes for COVID-19 actually broke it. If they know after 12 mail-in ballots likely favour Biden then it's really easy to just optimise for that and accept as many as possible. They can also store them somewhere secret as a buffer, sorted buffer, sort them by region and proportion of democrats in said region then slowly release then in batches as needed.
This is actually just a standard CS practice. Buffering and priority queue.
What I could probably do is write a small simulation of an election system that can do things like this just to see what kinds of patterns I get.
Label your axes. No idea what is being measured.
Yup. Pretty much shows a formulaic shaving off of votes for Trump. Or, Biden Trump vote swap.
What rational reason would there be for heavy R precincts to proportionately split their ticket more?
Much nicer demonstration of county examples in the vid. You can see the baseline or natural tendency is to have sparse clusters and fairly flat trends with some outliers. Then the linear bias shows up and it's pretty glaring.
Also, watch at 4:00 of the Hannity video in the president's tweet.
It explains how easy it is to create and install software that would do this. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327103335195938817
Fairfax County, VA does not allow straight party votes. I call BS on this graph and the whole post.
I am familiar with the Dr Shiva analysis in Michigan and it is compelling - there is more than enough reason to pursue it. You can download the data he used from Michigan election websites and see the breakdown of votes between straight ticket and per-candidate ballots.
The entire premise of this "graph" is that straight ticket voting is an option and show up in the results data. It is not an option in Fairfax County, VA.
Unless OP provides direct references to source data and an explanation of the charting procedure, this should be ignored as misinformation.
No
How is it not an option? Because you have to fill out individual bubbles? Are you high?
In Michigan (I have read this, not first hand experience), there is literally a place on the ballot where you can mark All Republican or All Democrat and skip all the individual names. This is “straight ticket”. Or, you can mark candidates individually. Their downloadable results break the votes out explicitly by which of these types of votes were cast.
Virginia does not do that. You can just mark each candidate.
And you can compare votes for republican senators and house to approximate. At the risk of being doxxed I know first-hand. That being said shiva's video is a cluster, he needs to release data and code because what he said in the video is confusing if you try to replicate.
Right. I didn't vote down ballot Rs in VA in 2016. I did this time. You can substitute republican straight ticket with votes for the republican senate candidate.
I've replicated findings in Nebraska. New post is here: https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8cBUnxd/ne-2nd-congressional-algorithmic/c/
Included is all the info. Please review.
"The entire premise of this "graph" is that straight ticket voting is an option and show up in the results data. It is not an option in Fairfax County, VA."
Confirmed.
FWIW - How Fairfax goes is how VA goes. They've perfected the art of the steal here. And they gave the world Gerry "The Vermin" Connoly.
The data in Virginia at the precinct level is showing that for only certain counties, the more republican the precinct is, the more likely the republicans were not to vote for the President.
The more Republican the precinct, the easier it would be to "hide" the stolen votes without the voters noticing.
Watch the bumble video where I walk through all the counties and explain what the graphs are showing throughout the state.
The linear pattern sticks out like a sore thumb when you look through the entire state.
Exactly. It's like they voted for both the red rep and the red senator and didn't vote for the president.
this still makes no sense to me, wouldn't ticket splitters reduce in absolute numbers the more republican a preccinct is in total volume? independent and democrat ticket splitters going more for trump then an ever more declining republicn splitter group deviating from him
the y-axis is relative to straight republican. if you watch the video i posted, it shows in virginia what a bunch of counties where the algorithm wasn't running look like. For example Henrico and Virginia Beach show no signs of the algorithm.
Dr. Shiva explains 20 minutes into the video here: http://thesaker.is/dr-shiva-live-mit-phd-analysis-of-michigan-votes-reveals-unfortunate-truth-of-u-s-voting-systems/
he doesnt account for volume of ticket splitters this looks like it does not
This is pointing out that the "volume" of republicans choosing to vote against the president follows a linear pattern of growth as the precincts become more republican in select counties.
The linear pattern is the problem not that some republicans split tickets.
In the rumble video, I show at least a dozen counties where the republicans went against the president, but it wasn't in a linear pattern.
This info raises suspicion into those counties. It sure looks like software was used to systematically take votes away from the president in places that they would be less likely to be missed.
Yes it would, but this is showing that you are proportionality more likely to be a ticket splitter if you live in a republican neighborhood. That is straight line nature is what is being disputed with this analysis.