There's an issue with that spread sheet -- It's showing repeated entries that are status updates. There's 90k entries on there. Vote ranges are up to 2,000. He's only got one county pulled up. 90k*1000 = 90,000,000. One county didn't get 90mil votes. The precincts are reporting in identical values as in "nothing has changed". They keep reporting in their current status, most of which never changed. They do this to leave a time fingerprint behind so it's actually more secure in that you will be able to see any major swings between reporting periods.
Go back and look at the data set. You'll see they're reporting total numbers, not updates. That's the key thing that invalidates the entire vid as he's assuming identical status reports are more votes coming in, they're actually just showing nothing has changed.
That's not true, if he removed duplicate entries you will see that most of the data he scrolls through would be removed. You're seeing the same data 10 to 20 times over. If you remove the status updates entirely keeping even the first and last identical updates, there's still no there, here. Vote totals aren't high because there's shit loads of voting locations. Stop on any of his data sets, screen cap, cross out duplicates and you'll see there's no large pattern present.
Correct! If he adds up the total votes received by each candidate at the end of the election, he'll understand his error.
Every time stamp represents the total number of votes received by a county up until that point in time.....he incorrectly interprets each line item as a batch of votes.
If you look at the data for Philadelphia and the 4th alone, then there are only 4 times when the system is actually updated with new data. Inbetween the data stays the same for every polling location. Therefore all these rows inbetween can actually be deleted.
But if you have only 4 updates, then it is logical that the ratios "transfer" during these updates.
Pls go and verify this yourself. Heres the amount of polling places reporting actual updates per each timestamp:
9:39:44 -> 1685
15:11:18 -> 1695
20:02:30 -> 189
20:47:22 ->1677
Again, for all other timestamps there was no actual change for no polling location.
No, it is not more "logical" that the ratios transfer between closely time-related updates, it's less. In fact that's the whole crux of his argument: you'd expect to see matches, but later or earlier, during other time intervals. It's precisely the fact that they're temporally adjacent that's the sign of fuckery.
There are only 4 intervalls where actual updates happen. All timestamps inbetween show absolutely no change. Therefore these timestamps can actually be deleted.
These so called "transfers" are just the updates, it is logical that then the ratios switch and some other polling place reports the same ratios as another one did before.
As an example take the ratio 1:5:
At 07:08:18 the first update comes in and polling place 05-30 has this ratio.
At the first update, at 9:39:44, 05-30 changes to a 43:219. This is as expected that with new votes there is a new ratio.
With the same update, four new polling places have the 1:5 ratio: 01-05, 05-13, 05-24 and 19-02. Again, this is as expected, as with every update the ratios should change for every polling station.
Next update is at 15:11:18, and the four polling places which had the 1:5 ratios, all have new ratios. On the other hand, location 25-16 and 36-29 newly have the 1:5 ratio.
Next update is 20:02:30, but nothing changes for this ratio. However, for this update, only very few locations reported actual updates. Therefore no new locations with a 1:5 ratio is entirely possible.
the last update on the 4th is at 20:47:22. Here again the two places which had previously the 1:5 ratios switch to a new ratio, but 48-18 newly has this ratio.
This is all entirely plausible, as with every update and new votes the ratios change for the polling places. This means, that at every update different polling places will have a certain ratio.
On the other hand, if with new votes the ratios would stay constant, that would be VERY suspicious.
There's an issue with that spread sheet -- It's showing repeated entries that are status updates. There's 90k entries on there. Vote ranges are up to 2,000. He's only got one county pulled up. 90k*1000 = 90,000,000. One county didn't get 90mil votes. The precincts are reporting in identical values as in "nothing has changed". They keep reporting in their current status, most of which never changed. They do this to leave a time fingerprint behind so it's actually more secure in that you will be able to see any major swings between reporting periods.
Go back and look at the data set. You'll see they're reporting total numbers, not updates. That's the key thing that invalidates the entire vid as he's assuming identical status reports are more votes coming in, they're actually just showing nothing has changed.
That's not an issue because it's addressed by the Author.
Why are ranges only up to 2000? There are only a maximum of 2000 voters in a given precinct?
Yes, again, if you watch the video he points that out. It doesn't change his actual argument.
That's not true, if he removed duplicate entries you will see that most of the data he scrolls through would be removed. You're seeing the same data 10 to 20 times over. If you remove the status updates entirely keeping even the first and last identical updates, there's still no there, here. Vote totals aren't high because there's shit loads of voting locations. Stop on any of his data sets, screen cap, cross out duplicates and you'll see there's no large pattern present.
Yes, but that's not important. Did you actually watch the video? He's talking specifically about updates, not the time in between.
Correct! If he adds up the total votes received by each candidate at the end of the election, he'll understand his error.
Every time stamp represents the total number of votes received by a county up until that point in time.....he incorrectly interprets each line item as a batch of votes.
Here's an example:
https://imgur.com/T6fDJKp
27:34 in the vid, with duplicates removed, it's not impressive. The data set is entirely too small https://imgur.com/a/XUKaUZu
In simple terms, imagine if I asked you to count all the money you had in your pocket every hour and recorded the amounts, example below.
How much money is in your pocket at 5pm using the data recorded below?
1pm: $3 2pm: $3 3pm: $3 4pm: $6 5pm: $8
This might be misleading.
If you look at the data for Philadelphia and the 4th alone, then there are only 4 times when the system is actually updated with new data. Inbetween the data stays the same for every polling location. Therefore all these rows inbetween can actually be deleted.
But if you have only 4 updates, then it is logical that the ratios "transfer" during these updates.
Pls go and verify this yourself. Heres the amount of polling places reporting actual updates per each timestamp:
9:39:44 -> 1685
15:11:18 -> 1695
20:02:30 -> 189
20:47:22 ->1677
Again, for all other timestamps there was no actual change for no polling location.
No, it is not more "logical" that the ratios transfer between closely time-related updates, it's less. In fact that's the whole crux of his argument: you'd expect to see matches, but later or earlier, during other time intervals. It's precisely the fact that they're temporally adjacent that's the sign of fuckery.
There are only 4 intervalls where actual updates happen. All timestamps inbetween show absolutely no change. Therefore these timestamps can actually be deleted. These so called "transfers" are just the updates, it is logical that then the ratios switch and some other polling place reports the same ratios as another one did before.
As an example take the ratio 1:5:
At 07:08:18 the first update comes in and polling place 05-30 has this ratio. At the first update, at 9:39:44, 05-30 changes to a 43:219. This is as expected that with new votes there is a new ratio. With the same update, four new polling places have the 1:5 ratio: 01-05, 05-13, 05-24 and 19-02. Again, this is as expected, as with every update the ratios should change for every polling station.
Next update is at 15:11:18, and the four polling places which had the 1:5 ratios, all have new ratios. On the other hand, location 25-16 and 36-29 newly have the 1:5 ratio.
Next update is 20:02:30, but nothing changes for this ratio. However, for this update, only very few locations reported actual updates. Therefore no new locations with a 1:5 ratio is entirely possible.
the last update on the 4th is at 20:47:22. Here again the two places which had previously the 1:5 ratios switch to a new ratio, but 48-18 newly has this ratio.
This is all entirely plausible, as with every update and new votes the ratios change for the polling places. This means, that at every update different polling places will have a certain ratio.
On the other hand, if with new votes the ratios would stay constant, that would be VERY suspicious.