The 66.2% turnout is not calculated as voters divided by registered voters, but as voters divided by “eligible voters.”
“Eligible voters” is a wonkish term of art, and is an estimate of the number of people eligible to vote determined without regard to registration status. This means the denominator is larger than 213 million.
This turnout calculation helps determine civic engagement by measuring the percentage of people who could vote with minimal effort (i.e., all they have to do is vote or register and then vote) who actually voted.
Gateway Pundit ran with this. It’s an embarassment.
Spez: The point is that multiplying by a smaller denominator than was actually used to compute the fraction will not return the numerator initially used in the fraction.
Thanks for clarifying this.... This has definitely been bugging me.
However, math is still pretty astounding if the numbers posted above are accurate.
155.5M total votes cast
213.8M total registered voters
= 72.5% of all voter registrations had ballots casts. Additionally, this number assumes 100% voter role accuracy.
If you assume 10% less actual registered voters because of inaccurate roles which in my opinion is very reasonable. Then:
155.5M votes cast
192.4M registered voters
= 80.8%
If voter roles are off by 15%, then registered participation goes up to 85.5%.
Those are crazy high turn out numbers. Am I missing something with these assumptions ? Also, is this not way outside the norm?
Assuming the 213 million properly accounts for those who registered same-day on election day (and, IIRC, it does), your analysis seems accurate.
Obviously, people could challenge your assumption re 10% voter roll error (I am not, just pointing out others could).
It is acknowledged that the 66.2% turnout (calculated as voters divided by eligible voters, as discussed above) is a very high value (I believe 1900 or so was the last time it was higher). Depending on how the percentage of “eligble voters” who are registered voters has trended over time, perhaps the 72.5 to 80 or so percent would gibe with expectations of reality. Then again, maybe not.
This is a long-winded way of saying your analysis is asking the right questions. However, OP’s flawed analysis, which concludes a mathematically impossible number of people voted, is not a valid analysis.
Nonetheless, just because OP’s analysis is, effectively, nonsensical, it doesn’t mean there weren’t a shit ton of fraudulent votes. A lot of evidence suggests there were.
Drives me absolutely insane knowing there are not more people in the media, government, law enforcement, and courts with the common sense and/or ethics enough to ask logical questions and get to honest answers while providing full transparency.
Alk this cloak and dagger, man behind the curtain bullshit is giving me anxiety.
Good god, this again?
The 66.2% turnout is not calculated as voters divided by registered voters, but as voters divided by “eligible voters.”
“Eligible voters” is a wonkish term of art, and is an estimate of the number of people eligible to vote determined without regard to registration status. This means the denominator is larger than 213 million.
This turnout calculation helps determine civic engagement by measuring the percentage of people who could vote with minimal effort (i.e., all they have to do is vote or register and then vote) who actually voted.
Gateway Pundit ran with this. It’s an embarassment.
Spez: The point is that multiplying by a smaller denominator than was actually used to compute the fraction will not return the numerator initially used in the fraction.
Anyone putting out unverified "evidence" is hurting the movement.
Chad Yes.
Thanks for clarifying this.... This has definitely been bugging me.
However, math is still pretty astounding if the numbers posted above are accurate.
155.5M total votes cast 213.8M total registered voters = 72.5% of all voter registrations had ballots casts. Additionally, this number assumes 100% voter role accuracy.
If you assume 10% less actual registered voters because of inaccurate roles which in my opinion is very reasonable. Then: 155.5M votes cast 192.4M registered voters = 80.8%
If voter roles are off by 15%, then registered participation goes up to 85.5%.
Those are crazy high turn out numbers. Am I missing something with these assumptions ? Also, is this not way outside the norm?
Hope my math is right 🤔
Assuming the 213 million properly accounts for those who registered same-day on election day (and, IIRC, it does), your analysis seems accurate.
Obviously, people could challenge your assumption re 10% voter roll error (I am not, just pointing out others could).
It is acknowledged that the 66.2% turnout (calculated as voters divided by eligible voters, as discussed above) is a very high value (I believe 1900 or so was the last time it was higher). Depending on how the percentage of “eligble voters” who are registered voters has trended over time, perhaps the 72.5 to 80 or so percent would gibe with expectations of reality. Then again, maybe not.
This is a long-winded way of saying your analysis is asking the right questions. However, OP’s flawed analysis, which concludes a mathematically impossible number of people voted, is not a valid analysis.
Nonetheless, just because OP’s analysis is, effectively, nonsensical, it doesn’t mean there weren’t a shit ton of fraudulent votes. A lot of evidence suggests there were.
Thanks for the reply.
Drives me absolutely insane knowing there are not more people in the media, government, law enforcement, and courts with the common sense and/or ethics enough to ask logical questions and get to honest answers while providing full transparency.
Alk this cloak and dagger, man behind the curtain bullshit is giving me anxiety.
Word.