It sounds like the algorithm that Dr. Shiva discussed in his analysis of the election results in Michigan. Trump greatly underperformed in very strong pro Rebuplican counties, and the more the precinicts voted republican, the worse he did. All of the down ballot races went Republican, but only 70-80% of these voters voted for Trump. This makes no sense. These results occured on Dominion voting machines. But, from what I have been reading ESS also uses Smartmatic software (like Dominion) or is vunerable to election fraud, like Dominion. My hunch is what you are finding is the same thing Dr. Shiva saw in his analysis. You may want to try and reach out to him. I will be praying for you, patriot.
Crowder said Shivas analysis was bad but I haven’t found where he said why. Any info on that? I tend to think it was a little on the “statisticians tell you what they want when they use the data the right way” because he is a bit on edge, but there is still probably some degree of veracity to it?
Downvote me if you want but Dr. Shiva is absolutely useless here. There is a reason he didn’t provide an affadavit to the campaign. He also said the machines were rigged in his statewide primary because he “knew he got more support.”
Considering crowder lost his first two and most loyal employees due to his love of dressing as a woman and forcing them to kiss him i would say I don't trust crowder either. Sven Computer et all we do not forget. He betrays his friends.
Shiva destroyed the mathematician in a rebuttal video.
Then Shiva issued a challenge to the "YouTube expert":
"We had someone write to me and they said, 'You should take down that video. Your math is off...' And this is a guy, when you looked at his math, there are a lot of things wrong with his math. And I feel bad writing to him. But . . . he doesn't understand elections, so he made some very, very fundamental assumptions. And you know who you are. You can give me a call if you want to. But we are not taking down any videos [laughs]. Because your math is wrong. And the reason his math is wrong is he hasn't had his hands dirty looking at election systems."
--Dr. Shiva
https://www.pscp.tv/va_shiva/1mrGmwqQayNxy?t=12m27s (Timestamped)
. . .
"To those mathematicians out there who sent me very complex formulas, you guys need to really listen here... people are doing all this math stuff, but have no idea they're basically assuming there is no election fraud, assuming votes equals voters... [because] . . . [the headline] "No Election Fraud" [is] on the front page of The New York Times."
I think I saw that debunking. I’m not totally convinced it succeeded tho. I understand why subtracting percentages is a statistics faux pas, but in the context shiva used it it was pretty defensible. He was comparing expected rate to observed rate. He also made a clear case for why the expected and observed should theoretically be very closely correlated. The size and weight of each sample is irrelevant when you’re simply looking at a rate within each sample. The debunker also didn’t accurately characterize the precise argument or method when he recapped it in his video, which was fishy to me. I’m not a statistician so I could be wrong, but I would need to see more debunkings to be confident shiva was wrong.
Side note, it actually wasn’t shiva’s work, it was that young black guy on the zoom call who was the phd data scientist. Shiva was just presenting the info. The guy who did the analysis wasn’t a noob who would make an elementary mistake. That’s another reason it was a red flag to me that the debunking guy suggested it was a beginner mistake. The guy who did it was no beginner, plus he is affiliated with a university so he has skin in the game for putting forth bad data.
Unfortunately I believe it's true that Shiva's analysis is bad. The problem is that by putting the % straight ticket on the x-axis, he's forcing the % of non-straight ticket to go down. This pattern occurs for both Trump and Biden, occurs in other areas, and occurs in previous election years. One goes up, the other necessarily goes down. I'm a data scientist and discovered this on my own while trying to replicate his finding.
This guy does a good job of explaining it slightly different to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8. Ignore his Benford's "debunking" though, it's ridiculous and unfounded.
No, I have not heard anything about Crowder's comments on Shiva's work. I have an MBA in Finance and Accounting from The University of Chicago. Not to say I am a math guru, but I have an analytical bent, and I found his presentation compelling and accurate.
Ok interesting. I thought crowder mentioned something about a PhD in the right putting out a BS analysis, and it seemed like it was Shiva based on what he said and how he described it. I was compelled too.
He used one of the axes to plot the difference between split ballot proportion and straight ticket proportion. It's difficult for most people to understand that, self included, and IMO his contribution suffers for that reason. Keeping it simpler is more persuasive. Should've just plotted the split ballot proportion on one axis and the straight ticket proportion on the other. He made a mess of it by trying to make the data look more neat and tidy on one graph.
Sure they do. He put % of straight Republican ticket on the X axis, and T-% R on the Y. You would expect the cluster to be low and slope slightly down, as you move to the right. But it slopes dramatically. It slopes downward at a sharp angle, meaning as you analyze precincts with a higher percentage of Republicans who vote a straight Republican ticket, you get a lower percentage of Trump votes. This makes no sense! Most everyone who votes straight R will vote for Trump, right? That would give you at the very least, a zero number on his graph (excess Trump votes). But the slope is negative . . . showing the more people voted R down ballot, the less they voted for Trump.
I believe that was before Shiva did an update with the gateway pundit. The whole "analysis was bad" came from some so called youtube statistician trying to throw a wrench in his analysis.
Benford, as in Benford's Law, is a statistical method of detecting the possibility of fraud, not a particular living person performing statistical analysis relevant to this election.
If that is what you came away with from the follow-up then you obviously have no clue what he is talking about. At the very beginning he speaks on pattern analysis not statistics. His initial thesis wasn't wrong, and his follow-up was a better explanation of the initial.
You may want to reevaluate calling someone retarded because you can't understand the material.
I can confirm. Prelim data analysis sent to me showed evidence of fraud in NE-2. Victory margin matched Scorecard Tier2 (11% +/- 0.55%). I was told it was forwarded to NE GOP more than a week ago.
Reported margin rounded to 10%, it should be exactly 10.45% for Scorecard Tier2 target algorithm. Melissa Rosales Nov4 reported margin as 10.43%
How to find the switched/missing Trump votes? SEE BELOW
Trump votes likely switched to Biden. Look at the Biden votes vs downballot Dems (House). And then also Dem Senate vs downballot Dems (House). You will see big mismatch compared to Trump vs Repub downballot ( House)
Those are all the stolen votes. In some cases you will see “missing” Trump votes as well where Trump gets less votes than Repub House. These are likely “deleted” Trump votes.
Hand audit of your most Republican county will show the most obvious vote theft. Or compare registered Republicans in county vs actual Trump votes. Ratio of Trump vote/Registered Repub will be waaaaay below 1.0
I have no opinion on Shiva's claims regarding the election - HOWEVER - the dude IS a kook and a grifter, so it's best to thoroughly vet any claim he makes.
He claims he "invented email" - which is complete bullshit.
He likes to pull the race card when his ridiculous claims are challenged.
V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai is not a member of the MIT faculty and did not invent email. In 1980 he created a small-scale electronic mail system used within University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, but this could not send messages outside the university and included no important features missing from earlier systems. The details of Ayyadurai’s program were never published, it was never commercialized, and it had no apparent influence on any further work in the field. He does not “hold the patent for email” or have a copyright on the word email, though in 1982 he did register a copyright claim covering the exact text of a program called "EMAIL." The U.S. Government has not recognized him as the inventor of email and he did not win the Westinghouse Science Talent Search for his program. Electronic mail services were widely used in the 1960s and 1970s and were commercially available long before 1980. To substantiate his claim to be the "inventor of email" Ayyadurai would have to show that no electronic mail system was produced prior to 1980, and so he has recently created an absurdly specific and historically inaccurate definition of electronic mail designed to exclude earlier systems. Ayyadurai has not even been able to show that he was the first to contract “electronic mail” to “email” or “e-mail” – his first documented use is in 1981 whereas the Oxford English Dictionary shows a newspaper usage in 1979. Despite Ayyadurai’s energetic public relations campaign, which presents him as the victim of a racist conspiracy financed by corporate interests, he has not received support from any credible experts in email technology or the history of information technology. His claims have been widely debunked by technology bloggers and articles based on them have been retracted by the Washington Post and the Huffington Post.
This entire conversational chain is full of assholes arguing deep red counties should be expected to vote Biden heavy inside the R party, and slamming email claim as some kind of justification.
If I misread yours, oops, whatever. I'm already past the stupid on display here. Friendly fire or whatever, it's a retarded argument being repeated up and down thread by a likely troll.
30+ year software engineer here. Shiva DID invent EMAIL. Yes, there were other similar systems at the time (that could only operate on intranets), but Shiva was one of the first (there were many) to actually send an "email" to a remote network.
And he did copyright the phrase "EMAIL". Therefore, he invented EMAIL.
It sounds like the algorithm that Dr. Shiva discussed in his analysis of the election results in Michigan. Trump greatly underperformed in very strong pro Rebuplican counties, and the more the precinicts voted republican, the worse he did. All of the down ballot races went Republican, but only 70-80% of these voters voted for Trump. This makes no sense. These results occured on Dominion voting machines. But, from what I have been reading ESS also uses Smartmatic software (like Dominion) or is vunerable to election fraud, like Dominion. My hunch is what you are finding is the same thing Dr. Shiva saw in his analysis. You may want to try and reach out to him. I will be praying for you, patriot.
Crowder said Shivas analysis was bad but I haven’t found where he said why. Any info on that? I tend to think it was a little on the “statisticians tell you what they want when they use the data the right way” because he is a bit on edge, but there is still probably some degree of veracity to it?
Shiva hasn’t produced an affidavit to my knowledge. I trust the Dr Kia guy and Braynard though
Downvote me if you want but Dr. Shiva is absolutely useless here. There is a reason he didn’t provide an affadavit to the campaign. He also said the machines were rigged in his statewide primary because he “knew he got more support.”
https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/1332783360855465987?s=20
Considering crowder lost his first two and most loyal employees due to his love of dressing as a woman and forcing them to kiss him i would say I don't trust crowder either. Sven Computer et all we do not forget. He betrays his friends.
I’m out of the loop on the Crowder drama. Can anyone give me the spark notes?
Receipts or stfu
Shiva was subtracting percentages with different denominators, there’s a mathematician that debunked it if you want more context
Shiva destroyed the mathematician in a rebuttal video.
Then Shiva issued a challenge to the "YouTube expert":
. . .
https://youtu.be/R8xb6qJKJqU?t=1823 (Timestamped)
I think I saw that debunking. I’m not totally convinced it succeeded tho. I understand why subtracting percentages is a statistics faux pas, but in the context shiva used it it was pretty defensible. He was comparing expected rate to observed rate. He also made a clear case for why the expected and observed should theoretically be very closely correlated. The size and weight of each sample is irrelevant when you’re simply looking at a rate within each sample. The debunker also didn’t accurately characterize the precise argument or method when he recapped it in his video, which was fishy to me. I’m not a statistician so I could be wrong, but I would need to see more debunkings to be confident shiva was wrong.
Side note, it actually wasn’t shiva’s work, it was that young black guy on the zoom call who was the phd data scientist. Shiva was just presenting the info. The guy who did the analysis wasn’t a noob who would make an elementary mistake. That’s another reason it was a red flag to me that the debunking guy suggested it was a beginner mistake. The guy who did it was no beginner, plus he is affiliated with a university so he has skin in the game for putting forth bad data.
Are there other/better debunkings?
Is this the new "shaka when the walls fell" ?
Unfortunately I believe it's true that Shiva's analysis is bad. The problem is that by putting the % straight ticket on the x-axis, he's forcing the % of non-straight ticket to go down. This pattern occurs for both Trump and Biden, occurs in other areas, and occurs in previous election years. One goes up, the other necessarily goes down. I'm a data scientist and discovered this on my own while trying to replicate his finding.
This guy does a good job of explaining it slightly different to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8. Ignore his Benford's "debunking" though, it's ridiculous and unfounded.
No, I have not heard anything about Crowder's comments on Shiva's work. I have an MBA in Finance and Accounting from The University of Chicago. Not to say I am a math guru, but I have an analytical bent, and I found his presentation compelling and accurate.
Ok interesting. I thought crowder mentioned something about a PhD in the right putting out a BS analysis, and it seemed like it was Shiva based on what he said and how he described it. I was compelled too.
Black scholes!
LOL. Amen bro.
He used one of the axes to plot the difference between split ballot proportion and straight ticket proportion. It's difficult for most people to understand that, self included, and IMO his contribution suffers for that reason. Keeping it simpler is more persuasive. Should've just plotted the split ballot proportion on one axis and the straight ticket proportion on the other. He made a mess of it by trying to make the data look more neat and tidy on one graph.
Sure they do. He put % of straight Republican ticket on the X axis, and T-% R on the Y. You would expect the cluster to be low and slope slightly down, as you move to the right. But it slopes dramatically. It slopes downward at a sharp angle, meaning as you analyze precincts with a higher percentage of Republicans who vote a straight Republican ticket, you get a lower percentage of Trump votes. This makes no sense! Most everyone who votes straight R will vote for Trump, right? That would give you at the very least, a zero number on his graph (excess Trump votes). But the slope is negative . . . showing the more people voted R down ballot, the less they voted for Trump.
also worth noting that his presentation was alongside 2 other people. It was not an individual analysis.
yeah lol the problem with shiva's argument is that few people actually (claim to) understand it.
I believe that was before Shiva did an update with the gateway pundit. The whole "analysis was bad" came from some so called youtube statistician trying to throw a wrench in his analysis.
I wrote up some information on it here: https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8lXhRrO/i-hope-that-the-trump-campaign-h/
Benford, as in Benford's Law, is a statistical method of detecting the possibility of fraud, not a particular living person performing statistical analysis relevant to this election.
If that is what you came away with from the follow-up then you obviously have no clue what he is talking about. At the very beginning he speaks on pattern analysis not statistics. His initial thesis wasn't wrong, and his follow-up was a better explanation of the initial.
You may want to reevaluate calling someone retarded because you can't understand the material.
r/iamverysmart vibes
I can confirm. Prelim data analysis sent to me showed evidence of fraud in NE-2. Victory margin matched Scorecard Tier2 (11% +/- 0.55%). I was told it was forwarded to NE GOP more than a week ago.
Reported margin rounded to 10%, it should be exactly 10.45% for Scorecard Tier2 target algorithm. Melissa Rosales Nov4 reported margin as 10.43%
Trump votes likely switched to Biden. Look at the Biden votes vs downballot Dems (House). And then also Dem Senate vs downballot Dems (House). You will see big mismatch compared to Trump vs Repub downballot ( House)
Those are all the stolen votes. In some cases you will see “missing” Trump votes as well where Trump gets less votes than Repub House. These are likely “deleted” Trump votes.
Hand audit of your most Republican county will show the most obvious vote theft. Or compare registered Republicans in county vs actual Trump votes. Ratio of Trump vote/Registered Repub will be waaaaay below 1.0
You’re right. This sounds exactly like the Shiva scenario
Okay. From the Sidney Powell lawsuit, ES&S is also subject to manipulation and fraud.
I have no opinion on Shiva's claims regarding the election - HOWEVER - the dude IS a kook and a grifter, so it's best to thoroughly vet any claim he makes.
He claims he "invented email" - which is complete bullshit.
He likes to pull the race card when his ridiculous claims are challenged.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190518/23370542236/laying-out-all-evidence-shiva-ayyadurai-did-not-invent-email.shtml
V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai is not a member of the MIT faculty and did not invent email. In 1980 he created a small-scale electronic mail system used within University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, but this could not send messages outside the university and included no important features missing from earlier systems. The details of Ayyadurai’s program were never published, it was never commercialized, and it had no apparent influence on any further work in the field. He does not “hold the patent for email” or have a copyright on the word email, though in 1982 he did register a copyright claim covering the exact text of a program called "EMAIL." The U.S. Government has not recognized him as the inventor of email and he did not win the Westinghouse Science Talent Search for his program. Electronic mail services were widely used in the 1960s and 1970s and were commercially available long before 1980. To substantiate his claim to be the "inventor of email" Ayyadurai would have to show that no electronic mail system was produced prior to 1980, and so he has recently created an absurdly specific and historically inaccurate definition of electronic mail designed to exclude earlier systems. Ayyadurai has not even been able to show that he was the first to contract “electronic mail” to “email” or “e-mail” – his first documented use is in 1981 whereas the Oxford English Dictionary shows a newspaper usage in 1979. Despite Ayyadurai’s energetic public relations campaign, which presents him as the victim of a racist conspiracy financed by corporate interests, he has not received support from any credible experts in email technology or the history of information technology. His claims have been widely debunked by technology bloggers and articles based on them have been retracted by the Washington Post and the Huffington Post.
I don't pay attention to his claims about email. I suspect he got into an argument and just refused to let it go.
But his election math looks solid. And he has a Democrat election math and voter fraud expert on his videos saying the same things as him.
Lol - an argument.
Dude popped up in 2011 talking about he invented email in 1978.
Those of us who actually sent email before 1978 were like ?????
Dude is a fucking crazy liar, and you better take everything he says with a huge grain of salt.
Anyone here that cites WaPo and HuffPo retractions as evidence of discrediting someone is just a Dem troll / agent.
You just revealed yourself.
No one gives a fuck about email claim.
Fool.
I didn't cite them as sources.
They had to RETRACT the bullshit stories they wrote about Shiva.
This entire conversational chain is full of assholes arguing deep red counties should be expected to vote Biden heavy inside the R party, and slamming email claim as some kind of justification.
If I misread yours, oops, whatever. I'm already past the stupid on display here. Friendly fire or whatever, it's a retarded argument being repeated up and down thread by a likely troll.
30+ year software engineer here. Shiva DID invent EMAIL. Yes, there were other similar systems at the time (that could only operate on intranets), but Shiva was one of the first (there were many) to actually send an "email" to a remote network.
And he did copyright the phrase "EMAIL". Therefore, he invented EMAIL.
Complete bullshit.
His system ONLY worked on the one university. Never across networks.
Email was being sent across networks YEARS before Shiva came along.
He copyrighted his program named "EMAIL" - not the word.
What the fuck happened to this site?
There used to be critical thinkers interested in the truth here. Now, we have assclowns parroting bullshit.