This math shows the percentages of votes that were allocated to each candidate. I hope that's clear?
Edit: for our autists, there's another problem here. Notice how some of the "other vote" values are negative, (by a lot)? Isn't anybody asking, how can a vote total value be negative?
'Ranked choice voting' is a real thing in some countries, or at least it's been suggested in some countries. It would mean that this person had Biden as their first choice for president, and Trump as their second choice. That's not how voting in the US works though, obviously.
Sure but ranked choice voting wouldn't work this way either. Ranked choice voting would look at whether or not the front runner had a plurality and then if they didn't would kick in to count the second choice candidate of the candidate that received the lowest number of first choice votes.
It's an absolute trash system that is designed to enable mob rule.
And yes that shifted decimal point is curious. Doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the data. I haven't really analyzed it, but it seems like the algorithm was not consistent in the way it calculated "other votes". I noticed that some of the "other votes" values are negative.
butt butt but that's true for large values of 2!, shitlord!
No Pede,
.659 + .322 + .19 = 1 vote.
This math shows the percentages of votes that were allocated to each candidate. I hope that's clear?
Edit: for our autists, there's another problem here. Notice how some of the "other vote" values are negative, (by a lot)? Isn't anybody asking, how can a vote total value be negative?
You mean 0.019 but also how is 1 vote allocated to multiple people?
'Ranked choice voting' is a real thing in some countries, or at least it's been suggested in some countries. It would mean that this person had Biden as their first choice for president, and Trump as their second choice. That's not how voting in the US works though, obviously.
Sure but ranked choice voting wouldn't work this way either. Ranked choice voting would look at whether or not the front runner had a plurality and then if they didn't would kick in to count the second choice candidate of the candidate that received the lowest number of first choice votes.
It's an absolute trash system that is designed to enable mob rule.
And yes that shifted decimal point is curious. Doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the data. I haven't really analyzed it, but it seems like the algorithm was not consistent in the way it calculated "other votes". I noticed that some of the "other votes" values are negative.
Edit: transposition error?
Algorithm.
It eas supposed to be .1 to the big guy