The 781% turnout figure is misleading. That is percentage turnout when normalized to 80%. Not sure why they chose to do that.
The part about more ballots counted than counting capacity is huge. I wish they included a breakdown of the counties, machine types, and number of machines. Maybe that will be revealed later?
Edit: from further analysis downthread, this figure appears to be completely inaccurate:
80-100+% is bad, 650% is absolutely comical levels of fraud. Comical because all you can do is laugh to keep yourself from going full judge dredd on every single poll worker/ democrat in the state.
I would argue it’s not misleading at all. It doesmy matter if it’s 781.654% or 410.342%, the concept is still the same. There’s fraud.
Trump does this a lot with his tweets, cite an incorrect number that the left argues the actual number is X but still completely proves his point.
The left/swamp does the opposite. They change the whole concept of the argument while keeping technically correct numbers but hide behind “but the number is taken out of context”
Anyone who argues that numbers don’t lie either doesn’t understand or is intentionally misleading that numbers are only simplification of observations so our minds can have a reference point.
Interestingly, 78.1% (moving the decimal in 781%) is almost exactly the percent of turnout in N. Muskegon. (Again, 2,648 voters out of 3,390 registered.)
I get so confused trying to follow all this stuff.
I wish they would say "this county has 5000 population and 3500 registered voters and the vote total was 3501". Like that alone would just invalidate the whole county.
Edit: I read the section and want to change my answer as my previous one was based on just reading the comments above.
It sounds like the point being made is they found a lot of places (643 precincts) with over 80% turnout. 80% is already a fraud indicator for most places.
They don't have all the data since it is being repressed so they normalized based on what they do have and counting excess votes over 80% turnout and found a minimum 36,812 fraudulent votes.
Here is the text you can read it yourself
11. Another statistical red flag can be observed in Michigan where even the
very limited remaining public data reveals 643 precincts with voter turn-out
above 80%, according to county records. Further if these very limited remaining
public data votes were normalized to 80% turnout (still 15%+/- above normal),
the excess votes are at least 36,812 over the maximum that could be expected.
----------‐‐‐-------------
Here is my Previous answer that may be correct still but I dont know how they normalized the data. And it was not thr main point that was trying to be made in the document.
They based the 781% off of 80% instead of 100%. Normalizing just puts numbers into a perspective. I think they did that because 80% turnout is already a suspicious number that people could go to court to dispute because most record breaking turnout hits barely into the 70%s.
So the 781% is basically showing almost 8 times the amount of votes above what an already suspicious fraud line would be.
The 781% turnout figure is misleading. That is percentage turnout when normalized to 80%. Not sure why they chose to do that.
The part about more ballots counted than counting capacity is huge. I wish they included a breakdown of the counties, machine types, and number of machines. Maybe that will be revealed later?
Edit: from further analysis downthread, this figure appears to be completely inaccurate:
https://thedonald.win/p/11QS7j8aGI/x/c/4DpL5WZ58UB
So if they went off of 100% it would have been like 650% voter turnout or something like that? Still really really bad
80-100+% is bad, 650% is absolutely comical levels of fraud. Comical because all you can do is laugh to keep yourself from going full judge dredd on every single poll worker/ democrat in the state.
They made the lie big on purpose, known tactic.
Probably because 80% is the highest historical normal and they are showing us it is 781% higher than the historical normal
Our historical voting participation rate is in the 60s range. In the 2020 election, I think there were 100 million eligible voters who did not vote.
If 80% is 781% higher than the historical normal that would mean the historical normal is just barely over 10% wouldn't it?
Ah weird, I must have read the comment differently originally because upon re-reading that makes way more sense
I would argue it’s not misleading at all. It doesmy matter if it’s 781.654% or 410.342%, the concept is still the same. There’s fraud.
Trump does this a lot with his tweets, cite an incorrect number that the left argues the actual number is X but still completely proves his point.
The left/swamp does the opposite. They change the whole concept of the argument while keeping technically correct numbers but hide behind “but the number is taken out of context”
Anyone who argues that numbers don’t lie either doesn’t understand or is intentionally misleading that numbers are only simplification of observations so our minds can have a reference point.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Interestingly, 78.1% (moving the decimal in 781%) is almost exactly the percent of turnout in N. Muskegon. (Again, 2,648 voters out of 3,390 registered.)
I get so confused trying to follow all this stuff.
I wish they would say "this county has 5000 population and 3500 registered voters and the vote total was 3501". Like that alone would just invalidate the whole county.
Yeah I agree, I like seeing the raw data, it’s really easy to explain to normies that way.
Really? Link it.
Edit: I read the section and want to change my answer as my previous one was based on just reading the comments above.
It sounds like the point being made is they found a lot of places (643 precincts) with over 80% turnout. 80% is already a fraud indicator for most places. They don't have all the data since it is being repressed so they normalized based on what they do have and counting excess votes over 80% turnout and found a minimum 36,812 fraudulent votes.
Here is the text you can read it yourself 11. Another statistical red flag can be observed in Michigan where even the very limited remaining public data reveals 643 precincts with voter turn-out above 80%, according to county records. Further if these very limited remaining public data votes were normalized to 80% turnout (still 15%+/- above normal), the excess votes are at least 36,812 over the maximum that could be expected.
----------‐‐‐------------- Here is my Previous answer that may be correct still but I dont know how they normalized the data. And it was not thr main point that was trying to be made in the document.
They based the 781% off of 80% instead of 100%. Normalizing just puts numbers into a perspective. I think they did that because 80% turnout is already a suspicious number that people could go to court to dispute because most record breaking turnout hits barely into the 70%s.
So the 781% is basically showing almost 8 times the amount of votes above what an already suspicious fraud line would be.
According to the official state data, there were 0.779 times as many votes compared to registered voters.
Adjusted for defined factors.
It means these numbers ain't normal! This sheeit is rigged!
Ya think so?
;>