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.>
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.
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.
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.
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 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