Y'all have got to stop posting this stupid data analysis "proof". This is the type of stuff that makes us look idiotic and grasping at straws.
Data anomalies ARE NOT PROOF, you can not take this stuff to court and say "see, look this math thing says it is highly improbable for this to occur". Either fucking put up or shutup, proof is tangible, real occurrence that can be proven without a shadow of a doubt. Statistical analysis ain't the way.
Y'all need to learn introspection, this is some Bernie-bro level "PHONE BANK MATCH ME!!!!" cringe shit.
The main issue is that this particular dataset (voting results from precincts of very similar size) is not a valid candidate for BL analysis.
Financial data, which will have values over multiple orders of magnitude, is an excellent candidate. But even so, it's not proof. However, it can be a powerful indicator to justify a deeper dive.
Continuing to promote BL for precinct-level data just makes us look dumb and provides clickbait to the left.
Considering I actually have forensic accounting in my background.... no, that's not how it works.
You use anomalies to dig further and find proof. You have something like Benford's that highlights a problem. "Hey, look at this, something screwy". Then you start digging to find the anomalies, and audit from there. Audits are where the discovery comes from, and that is what allows you to find proof.
The key difference here is that, as said before, y'all are grasping at straws saying "LOOK AT THIS PROOF". This isn't proof, it is highlighting the need to do a deep dive and FIND proof. When you present data analysis alone as concrete evidence and it is then (expectedly, I might add) tossed in the garbage at court, y'all get all surprised Pikachu face, even though literally every lawyer with a podcast and YouTube channel knew it was coming.
Couldn't they have leveraged these analyses as probable cause to get subpoenas for further investigation? Always puzzled me why they didn't. Asking for the moon with just "data analyses" that haven't even been cross-examined was always going to go down in flames.
It's utter stupidity to think an anomaly is proof positive enough for court. Insane. Anomalies are and always will be just enough to give cause to further investigate.
Law enforcement get warrants issued based on anomalies... they wouldn't just immediately charge the suspect and go to trial with just that base anomaly (unless they suck at their job).
There is “statistical” and “physical”evidence. It’s usually brought up in court that way as well. Hopefully the statistical let’s you get the physical via warrants.
For instance, say there was an accident. It’s “likely” if there were only two cars on the area in a given time, that one or both were involved. It’s so probable that we can get a warrant or at least reasonably investigate (given resource constraints).
If instead one million cars were on the area, we’d have to narrow the search region. It’s probably most cars were not involved.
In this real case related to voter fraud, the statistical evidence is extremely odd. Making it so unlikely, that everyone should do a manual hand recount of all the ballots
You need to see my other post, and not surprisingly the truth is downvoted to shit because it is a hard truth that nobody wants to hear.
Data analysis points to anomalies, NOBODY is arguing that. However, those anomalies should be taken to the local level and get an immediate injunction/audit approval by whoever the governing body is. Newsflash, that IS NOT the court system, it is city council/aldermen/municipal supervisors/etc.
And there lies the rub..... we don't have a chance in hell going through the system by the book because there isn't a single major municipal city run by Republicans. We have become so fucking complacent and lazy at the local government level over the last 40 years that the enemy has literally taken over every single level of politics in every major city.
Stop thinking the courts are going to solve this, they aren't.
And yet if this data is presented to a court system to show that it points to anomalies, the courts should make those municipalities follow through in the investigation that data is laying the ground for.
And you expect major cities to vote for anything sensible, and not just ratchets offering gimme dats? Why not try to lasso the moon down while you're at it?
I think its simply the burden of proof requirement to show probable cause, but never enough on its own to prove beyond reasonable doubt. I would note that typically data analysis is used to show anomalies worth looking into, and then a proper investigation is conducted on everything involved. In this case, no such accompanying investigation has occurred, and I think we're quickly realizing there really is no proper remedy to find electoral fraud.
What I mean is simple: If there is fraud, who do you report this to? The same authorities that conducted said fraud? The Legislators, with split power and high incentive NOT to vote in favour of an investigation? The Courts? Even better, you have to typically file your lawsuit in the State Capitol, with the judges appointed by the State Legislature & Executive! The whole system is messed up, and we genuinely need to figure out a way to conduct independent verification of electoral results, without having to go through such conflicts of interests at least.
Y'all have got to stop posting this stupid data analysis "proof". This is the type of stuff that makes us look idiotic and grasping at straws.
Data anomalies ARE NOT PROOF, you can not take this stuff to court and say "see, look this math thing says it is highly improbable for this to occur". Either fucking put up or shutup, proof is tangible, real occurrence that can be proven without a shadow of a doubt. Statistical analysis ain't the way.
Y'all need to learn introspection, this is some Bernie-bro level "PHONE BANK MATCH ME!!!!" cringe shit.
If this were true then there wouldn't be people sitting in white collar prison for financial crimes you fucking moron.
Except anomalies are cause for further investigation, not the actual end proof of something nefarious -_-
The main issue is that this particular dataset (voting results from precincts of very similar size) is not a valid candidate for BL analysis. Financial data, which will have values over multiple orders of magnitude, is an excellent candidate. But even so, it's not proof. However, it can be a powerful indicator to justify a deeper dive.
Continuing to promote BL for precinct-level data just makes us look dumb and provides clickbait to the left.
Considering I actually have forensic accounting in my background.... no, that's not how it works.
You use anomalies to dig further and find proof. You have something like Benford's that highlights a problem. "Hey, look at this, something screwy". Then you start digging to find the anomalies, and audit from there. Audits are where the discovery comes from, and that is what allows you to find proof.
The key difference here is that, as said before, y'all are grasping at straws saying "LOOK AT THIS PROOF". This isn't proof, it is highlighting the need to do a deep dive and FIND proof. When you present data analysis alone as concrete evidence and it is then (expectedly, I might add) tossed in the garbage at court, y'all get all surprised Pikachu face, even though literally every lawyer with a podcast and YouTube channel knew it was coming.
Couldn't they have leveraged these analyses as probable cause to get subpoenas for further investigation? Always puzzled me why they didn't. Asking for the moon with just "data analyses" that haven't even been cross-examined was always going to go down in flames.
It's tough when the courts throw your case out without ever examining your evidence.
You're getting downvotes for being right.
It's utter stupidity to think an anomaly is proof positive enough for court. Insane. Anomalies are and always will be just enough to give cause to further investigate.
Law enforcement get warrants issued based on anomalies... they wouldn't just immediately charge the suspect and go to trial with just that base anomaly (unless they suck at their job).
Expert witnesses are used in virtually every court case in America.
I'm certain most will agree that any court would gain more knowledge from an expert witness, along with their analysis vs your evidentiary spaz fest.
There is “statistical” and “physical”evidence. It’s usually brought up in court that way as well. Hopefully the statistical let’s you get the physical via warrants.
For instance, say there was an accident. It’s “likely” if there were only two cars on the area in a given time, that one or both were involved. It’s so probable that we can get a warrant or at least reasonably investigate (given resource constraints).
If instead one million cars were on the area, we’d have to narrow the search region. It’s probably most cars were not involved.
In this real case related to voter fraud, the statistical evidence is extremely odd. Making it so unlikely, that everyone should do a manual hand recount of all the ballots
You need to see my other post, and not surprisingly the truth is downvoted to shit because it is a hard truth that nobody wants to hear.
Data analysis points to anomalies, NOBODY is arguing that. However, those anomalies should be taken to the local level and get an immediate injunction/audit approval by whoever the governing body is. Newsflash, that IS NOT the court system, it is city council/aldermen/municipal supervisors/etc.
And there lies the rub..... we don't have a chance in hell going through the system by the book because there isn't a single major municipal city run by Republicans. We have become so fucking complacent and lazy at the local government level over the last 40 years that the enemy has literally taken over every single level of politics in every major city.
Stop thinking the courts are going to solve this, they aren't.
Fucking THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And yet if this data is presented to a court system to show that it points to anomalies, the courts should make those municipalities follow through in the investigation that data is laying the ground for.
And you expect major cities to vote for anything sensible, and not just ratchets offering gimme dats? Why not try to lasso the moon down while you're at it?
Cities vote for shit that people cry about on their doorstep. They don't vote for shit because someone shared a spreadsheet in an echo chamber.
I think its simply the burden of proof requirement to show probable cause, but never enough on its own to prove beyond reasonable doubt. I would note that typically data analysis is used to show anomalies worth looking into, and then a proper investigation is conducted on everything involved. In this case, no such accompanying investigation has occurred, and I think we're quickly realizing there really is no proper remedy to find electoral fraud.
What I mean is simple: If there is fraud, who do you report this to? The same authorities that conducted said fraud? The Legislators, with split power and high incentive NOT to vote in favour of an investigation? The Courts? Even better, you have to typically file your lawsuit in the State Capitol, with the judges appointed by the State Legislature & Executive! The whole system is messed up, and we genuinely need to figure out a way to conduct independent verification of electoral results, without having to go through such conflicts of interests at least.
Data is the proof. Anomalies is descriptor.
So when you say data anomalies are not proof do you realize how completely retarded you sound?
Georgia did 3 hand recounts. How do you correlate the data which you allege proves the fraud, with the data from the recounts?