Limitations with the live data. All percentages are rounded to 0.1%.
Let's say there's 10000 votes. 50.6% for Biden and 49.4% for Trump. Add 1 vote for Trump to make it 5060-4941. The percentages are still 50.6% (50.595%) and 49.4% (49.405%) when rounded.
10001*50.6%=5060.506
10001*49.4%=4940.494
We now have a fractional vote that appears in the live data with Biden gaining more of the vote than Trump. If this was enough to cause the rounding to increase, we'd see an increase of 0.1% of the total vote to Trump and 0.1% decrease for Biden. That's why it looks like there's increases in a specific multiple (0.1% of total) when you take all the rounding errors and put them in a row.
When looking at the live data, you have to remove any possible rounding errors. That can remove some fraud, but it can't be proven. I believe someone on here did that months ago and still found many unexplainable instances.>
Yeah, definitely. I'd just hope people stop using the rounding errors as evidence of fraud. There's other inconsistencies that can't be easily explained without the generic "it was human error during 'x'." I'm still curious about that exact vote switch in New Jersey that was nearly 80k.
I have 2 cakes. I cut both perfectly in half. I now have 40.5 cakes. I round, and now I've got 4 cakes. I cut all four of them perfectly in half. I now have 80.5 cakes. I round, and now I've got 8 cakes. I round again, and now I've got 10 cakes. I cut them all perfectly in half...
That is what happens when you don't have meaningful significant digits when rounding, and that's why any mathematician, statistician, or retard with a second grade education knows better.
Bullshit. They knew damn well what they were doing when they lied, and nobody buys it, anymore than anybody wants to buy all 1 trillion of my freshly carved cakes.
A little too convoluted. This is simply the data giving a total votes and a percentage for each candidate. The votes for each candidate are estimated and not the actual values. Too many people get focused on that and forgot about the other inconsistencies.
No idea what they did on previous elections, but this may be their normal way of doing it. Completely stupid to have 0.1% rounding errors when dealing with millions, but what can you expect from them?
Total vote count is "exact" (some states have some odd counts). You are then given a percentage for each candidate. We don't know the exact vote count per candidate, only a percentage that is rounded which is used to estimate. When working with 1m votes, that rounding can cause the candidate estimates to be off by 1k.
A lot of these that are posted are likely due to people not knowing they are estimates. That's from the original source not providing all the information on how the numbers are gotten. Sound familiar?
I think you misunderstood. The instances I'm talking about are the +/- 0.1% changes that people are claiming are evidence of fraud or votes being stolen. When people do that, they're overshadowing actual instances where votes appear to be swapped.
I wrote a program to grab all instances of vote losses exceeding 0.1%. The swaps aren't as commo, but the fact they are there at all is a major issue. PA was so bad that I don't think they even know how to count. NJ has a near 80k exact vote swap. You've also got some smaller ones in other states. Then there's the vote dumps you can find in the data.
This thread about 1 vote being split between multiple candidates is a great example of not understanding the original data. It's about as bad as what the MSM does when presenting their data.
The MSM shows data in a way to fit their point of view. This can be by not showing everything, leaving out important information, changing the parameters, etc.
Showing a picture of a single vote that's "split" between candidates is doing the exact same thing. Another is showing only the times Trump goes down 0.1% or Biden up 0.1%. You could easily create the narrative that the machines were giving/taking a set percentage (magically 0.1% of total) of votes.
Since I seem to have to keep repeating myself, I'm not talking about large shifts outside the margin of error from rounding. I'm talking about the changes likely caused by the rounding. The large shifts should be getting attention, but people are too focused on the others.
Its because the reporting system uses a 3 sigfig system, which is absurd. Instead of using the vote total to calculate a %, it reports all votes then allocates a percentile figure. It should be total votes per candidate, then allocating a percentile but it intentionally does it backwards to buffer fraud in the algorithms
Yeah, I know. The issue is that many sources don't disclose that, nor even know. Without taking it into account, you can come up with weird conclusions and completely ignore the actual suspicious instances.
The rounding may not have been done with bad intentions. It's easy to forget about the consequences of your actions when programming. What we'd need to find is how the previous elections did it. If those used exact counts or more digits, then I'd have to agree with you on it being intentional.
I'm guessing here, but they should still have the exact counts on their system. Looks like they should have it by county too. With that, we'd be able to find any irregularity on a per county basis.
It's called the weighted race feature and has been around 20+ years. Dominion initially denied their machines had such a feature but different states have determined independently that examined machines do indeed have it.
The mostest best part is that demographic information about voters can be included in the algorithm so it can be made to appear that, say, black voters go for a certain candidate over another.
Notice how elections officials and the media have been normalizing the use of the term "tabulation" in place of "counting" for several years now. Tabulation implies more complex processes are being used to arrive at final vote tallies than would be required by the use of simple counting of whole numbers. They think we're so stupid we'll just "forget" that there are no fractional values required for the counting of whole numbers if they just keep using fancy words to describe the process.
"Skull and Bones, also known as The Order, Order 322 or The Brotherhood of Death is an undergraduate senior secret student society at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut."
The data is from the lawyer who represented in the case. If it was false he would be no longer a lawyer, and the left would be all over it. I trust it is legit. Regardless, dictator Whitmer is still trying to get him (among others) disbarred. Tells you enough right there.
They did audit it, and Trump got 7000 more votes. And if you want the data, you probably can file a FOIA request to get it. They still haven't explained where the missing 2000k votes went in the initial tally, though. That might warrant further investigation. The problem here is that the media is complicit. They will not make an issue of it because of their far left bias and hate for Trump. So with no pressure comes no consequences. The installation of the dictatorship is almost complete.
Dems been stealing percentage of votes since the 3/5ths compromise.
KEK
Trump lost about 2/3 of a vote, while Biden, who had ZERO votes, gained 2/3 of one.
Limitations with the live data. All percentages are rounded to 0.1%.
Let's say there's 10000 votes. 50.6% for Biden and 49.4% for Trump. Add 1 vote for Trump to make it 5060-4941. The percentages are still 50.6% (50.595%) and 49.4% (49.405%) when rounded.
10001*50.6%=5060.506
10001*49.4%=4940.494
We now have a fractional vote that appears in the live data with Biden gaining more of the vote than Trump. If this was enough to cause the rounding to increase, we'd see an increase of 0.1% of the total vote to Trump and 0.1% decrease for Biden. That's why it looks like there's increases in a specific multiple (0.1% of total) when you take all the rounding errors and put them in a row.
When looking at the live data, you have to remove any possible rounding errors. That can remove some fraud, but it can't be proven. I believe someone on here did that months ago and still found many unexplainable instances.>
As someone who works with large sets of data, this is retarded.
Retarded in what way? That it's rounded or the explanation that it's rounded?
I didnt mean your explanation was bad. I mean the way it's recorded it retardo.
Yeah, definitely. I'd just hope people stop using the rounding errors as evidence of fraud. There's other inconsistencies that can't be easily explained without the generic "it was human error during 'x'." I'm still curious about that exact vote switch in New Jersey that was nearly 80k.
Yes.
I have 2 cakes. I cut both perfectly in half. I now have 40.5 cakes. I round, and now I've got 4 cakes. I cut all four of them perfectly in half. I now have 80.5 cakes. I round, and now I've got 8 cakes. I round again, and now I've got 10 cakes. I cut them all perfectly in half...
That is what happens when you don't have meaningful significant digits when rounding, and that's why any mathematician, statistician, or retard with a second grade education knows better.
Bullshit. They knew damn well what they were doing when they lied, and nobody buys it, anymore than anybody wants to buy all 1 trillion of my freshly carved cakes.
A little too convoluted. This is simply the data giving a total votes and a percentage for each candidate. The votes for each candidate are estimated and not the actual values. Too many people get focused on that and forgot about the other inconsistencies.
No idea what they did on previous elections, but this may be their normal way of doing it. Completely stupid to have 0.1% rounding errors when dealing with millions, but what can you expect from them?
A percentage is a number that's derived from other numbers. A percentage of the vote is derived from the count of the vote.
You're telling us that vote counts are derived from a percentage.
That does not make snese.
Total vote count is "exact" (some states have some odd counts). You are then given a percentage for each candidate. We don't know the exact vote count per candidate, only a percentage that is rounded which is used to estimate. When working with 1m votes, that rounding can cause the candidate estimates to be off by 1k.
A lot of these that are posted are likely due to people not knowing they are estimates. That's from the original source not providing all the information on how the numbers are gotten. Sound familiar?
You dont lose a full 1% from 600 votes being added to 500k like here
You dont lose a full .6% when adding 54 votes to 5,000,000 like here. Thats theft. Thousands of votes swapped over.
Thats from the NYT's Edison data for Pennsylvania, you can view it here
This occurs repeatedly in the Edison data, no one has ever bothered to explain it. Idaho is by far the worst.
I think you misunderstood. The instances I'm talking about are the +/- 0.1% changes that people are claiming are evidence of fraud or votes being stolen. When people do that, they're overshadowing actual instances where votes appear to be swapped.
I wrote a program to grab all instances of vote losses exceeding 0.1%. The swaps aren't as commo, but the fact they are there at all is a major issue. PA was so bad that I don't think they even know how to count. NJ has a near 80k exact vote swap. You've also got some smaller ones in other states. Then there's the vote dumps you can find in the data.
This thread about 1 vote being split between multiple candidates is a great example of not understanding the original data. It's about as bad as what the MSM does when presenting their data.
The MSM has presented their data on why such large shifts occur? Id like to see
The MSM shows data in a way to fit their point of view. This can be by not showing everything, leaving out important information, changing the parameters, etc.
Showing a picture of a single vote that's "split" between candidates is doing the exact same thing. Another is showing only the times Trump goes down 0.1% or Biden up 0.1%. You could easily create the narrative that the machines were giving/taking a set percentage (magically 0.1% of total) of votes.
Since I seem to have to keep repeating myself, I'm not talking about large shifts outside the margin of error from rounding. I'm talking about the changes likely caused by the rounding. The large shifts should be getting attention, but people are too focused on the others.
Its because the reporting system uses a 3 sigfig system, which is absurd. Instead of using the vote total to calculate a %, it reports all votes then allocates a percentile figure. It should be total votes per candidate, then allocating a percentile but it intentionally does it backwards to buffer fraud in the algorithms
Yeah, I know. The issue is that many sources don't disclose that, nor even know. Without taking it into account, you can come up with weird conclusions and completely ignore the actual suspicious instances.
The rounding may not have been done with bad intentions. It's easy to forget about the consequences of your actions when programming. What we'd need to find is how the previous elections did it. If those used exact counts or more digits, then I'd have to agree with you on it being intentional.
I'm guessing here, but they should still have the exact counts on their system. Looks like they should have it by county too. With that, we'd be able to find any irregularity on a per county basis.
Decimal points in an election??? That’s why people don’t buy into the results of that election.
We need to have a centralized place for information for on going lawsuits. Trying to search for any of them is buried in miles of MSM screeching.
https://hereistheevidence.com/
It's just a resource. Points to lot of other websites. Here's an article from somewhere else. https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/yes-it-was-stolen-election-john-perazzo/
http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2020_Election_Cases.htm
I have been saying patriots.win should add a wiki for this sort of thing. Message the mods and ask for one.
Lmao, we're way way past the point of lawsuits.
2018 was a trial run, nothing was done.
Why the fuck is a voting machine dealing in fractional votes in any way?
It's called the weighted race feature and has been around 20+ years. Dominion initially denied their machines had such a feature but different states have determined independently that examined machines do indeed have it.
The mostest best part is that demographic information about voters can be included in the algorithm so it can be made to appear that, say, black voters go for a certain candidate over another.
You say "feature" like it makes any sense to have fractional votes.
It's just the full name of it. I don't like the idea of weighted votes at all.
Check this out https://i.maga.host/AZPutk5.png
Link is kill
Maga host is down
Notice how elections officials and the media have been normalizing the use of the term "tabulation" in place of "counting" for several years now. Tabulation implies more complex processes are being used to arrive at final vote tallies than would be required by the use of simple counting of whole numbers. They think we're so stupid we'll just "forget" that there are no fractional values required for the counting of whole numbers if they just keep using fancy words to describe the process.
At this point does it matter. They cheated and biden is in the White House.
Not talking about it, is what they want.
Yes yes, the "magic" bullet cannot be questioned or such a label will be invented by the CIA to slander observation and though for decades.
Fuck off.
Tinfoil for life, no apologies.
If you don't like it, fuck off back to shillville reddit.
Do you actually think this way? Question everything and talk about whatever the fuck you want. This is America.
Because they're going to keep pulling the same scam until they're caught
Til their PUNISHED. They have been caught repeatedly but rarely given more than a slap on the wrist, if that.
Its like saying: "The thief stole and ran with the goods".
Catch him. FIGHT HIM with any mean needed. Put him in prison. Do a special elections due to a fraud coup on November 3rd.
Mynmar 2.0 is the second option. You want that?
Negative votes? Wth?
Those are the secret values the system was set to assign votes at, made obvious by the place where there was only a single vote.
322 you say?
"Skull and Bones, also known as The Order, Order 322 or The Brotherhood of Death is an undergraduate senior secret student society at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Skull_and_Bones_members
Symbolism will be their downfall.
The last three highlighted symbols on the list.
Look who was Gog and Magog.
It's called FRAUD. But "don't worry", the FBI is looking into it...... /s
This is in Antrim County from the audit.
This is on Mike Lindell's Absolute Truth. It is part of the investigation in Antrim County, Michigan. I assume that it is available somewhere.
The data is from the lawyer who represented in the case. If it was false he would be no longer a lawyer, and the left would be all over it. I trust it is legit. Regardless, dictator Whitmer is still trying to get him (among others) disbarred. Tells you enough right there.
They did audit it, and Trump got 7000 more votes. And if you want the data, you probably can file a FOIA request to get it. They still haven't explained where the missing 2000k votes went in the initial tally, though. That might warrant further investigation. The problem here is that the media is complicit. They will not make an issue of it because of their far left bias and hate for Trump. So with no pressure comes no consequences. The installation of the dictatorship is almost complete.
HOW THE FUCK DOES ANYONE EXCUSE FRACTIONAL VOTES?
Yeah, yet no law enforcement agency, court, or military agency would do a thing. They were all COMPLICIT IN TREASON.
it's called fractional voting, and it's bullshit
Where were you 3+ months ago when all of this was shown to the world?
The idiots couldnt even round properly
static01.nyt.com/elections-assets/2020/data/api/2020-11-03/race-page/pennsylvania/president.json Replace state in url to another dominion state of your choosing. It happens dozens of times in each state. Pure vote stealing. We've had this information since Nov. 3rd and no one has ever explained how vote totals get subtracted every hundred updates or so