Edit: I read the section and want to change my answer as my previous one was based on just reading the comments above.

It sounds like the point being made is they found a lot of places (643 precincts) with over 80% turnout. 80% is already a fraud indicator for most places. They don't have all the data since it is being repressed so they normalized based on what they do have and counting excess votes over 80% turnout and found a minimum 36,812 fraudulent votes.

Here is the text you can read it yourself 11. Another statistical red flag can be observed in Michigan where even the very limited remaining public data reveals 643 precincts with voter turn-out above 80%, according to county records. Further if these very limited remaining public data votes were normalized to 80% turnout (still 15%+/- above normal), the excess votes are at least 36,812 over the maximum that could be expected.

----------‐‐‐------------- Here is my Previous answer that may be correct still but I dont know how they normalized the data. And it was not thr main point that was trying to be made in the document.

They based the 781% off of 80% instead of 100%. Normalizing just puts numbers into a perspective. I think they did that because 80% turnout is already a suspicious number that people could go to court to dispute because most record breaking turnout hits barely into the 70%s.

So the 781% is basically showing almost 8 times the amount of votes above what an already suspicious fraud line would be.

Edit: I read the section and want to change my answer as my previous one was based on just reading the comments above.

It sounds like the point being made is they found a lot of places (643 precincts) with over 80% turnout. 80% is already a fraud indicator for most places. They don't have all the data since it is being repressed so they normalized based on what they do have and are estimating at the minimum 36,812 fraudulent votes.

Here is the text you can read it yourself 11. Another statistical red flag can be observed in Michigan where even the very limited remaining public data reveals 643 precincts with voter turn-out above 80%, according to county records. Further if these very limited remaining public data votes were normalized to 80% turnout (still 15%+/- above normal), the excess votes are at least 36,812 over the maximum that could be expected.

----------‐‐‐------------- Here is my Previous answer that may be correct still but I dont know how they normalized the data. And it was not thr main point that was trying to be made in the document.

They based the 781% off of 80% instead of 100%. Normalizing just puts numbers into a perspective. I think they did that because 80% turnout is already a suspicious number that people could go to court to dispute because most record breaking turnout hits barely into the 70%s.

So the 781% is basically showing almost 8 times the amount of votes above what an already suspicious fraud line would be.

They based the 781% off of 80% instead of 100%. Normalizing just puts numbers into a perspective. I think they did that because 80% turnout is already a suspicious number that people could go to court to dispute because most record breaking turnout hits barely into the 70%s.

So the 781% is basically showing almost 8 times the amount of votes above what an already suspicious fraud line would be.