Seriously, we need to a demand an explanation for this.
The only ones I can come up with are "sorry, our tabulators are way faster than that" and "we stockpiled a bunch of USBs and then reported them all at once", but I haven't heard anyone come forth with an actual explanation for these vote dumps.
There isn't a final source that I've seen, but an AP article says at least 3 million mail-ins were requested.
It may be worth having a daily or weekly sticky to recap of real, fake, and unverified statements.
It's fine to share real info and theories, and it's okay to be proven wrong. However, once info is known to be false, we need to stop sharing it ASAP.
Correct. She wasn't a worker; she was a poll challenger.
https://youtu.be/psGpIuNh_dU?t=76
What she claims to have seen is very problematic.
They've done excellent work. Assuming everything was correctly executed, this video indicates fraud based on concrete facts (as opposed to weird statistical outliers). This is absolutely going to be useful in lawsuits.
Someone born in 1900-06-28 should not be voting.
I just don't see why the voter rolls cannot be cleaned up. The only legitimate reason to leave them in-place is so that you can use them to detect fraud, and we all know that's not what's happening.
Yeah, sudden jumps like this one is very suspicious. This person's methodology seems fine too.
The only ways I can explain this involve fraud or unfairness. Fake ballots, fake counts/reporting, or extreme ballot harvesting.
Was posted earlier and shown that the total ballots number is out-of-date (from Nov 10). Don't share this widely.
What do the rows represent? Do they show a precinct's daily tally?
I urge you to take the time to think of ways to explain the data without fraud. That will help you avoid easy mistakes in your analysis. We are looking for solid evidence of fraud.
It could be the case that all precincts update their counts at about the same time. If this happens, then all precinct ratios will change in lockstep. That would make a ratio disappear for certain precincts, and other precincts would have a chance of gaining that ratio. And that explains your video w/o fraud.
You can double-check your data to support or disprove this possibility, for example, by looking at one of the suspicious precinct's full day of data before, during, and after the time it had the ratio in question.
Further, many of the ratios in the video aren't very interesting (e.g., 1:5, 1:6, 1:16, 1:18) since they could happen normally. The ones that seem unlikely are the ones that are involve primes (or prime multiples) like 4:65 and 5:31.
The analysis is flawed and needs more work.
Solomon was assuming that each row referred to new votes added, but that cannot be accurate. The video shows Nov 4's Philadelphia data: 90K rows, with an average that exceeds 100 votes per row. Philadelphia has 1.6M people, and thus, cannot add 9+ million votes on Nov 4.
We need to be more critical about analyses that claim fraud to avoid making stupid mistakes.
Sorry but this analysis is flawed. Other than some weird ratios (like 4:65 or 5:31) showing up, the repeated nature of the ratios is not indicative of fraud.
The data rows don't represent new votes. Instead, they are likely to be the daily tally for that precinct. The reason that the rows are not new votes is that there'd be far too many votes from Philadelphia if counted that way. The author shows ~90K rows just for Philadelphia on Nov 4, and the average row is 100+. If multiplied straight up, that's >9 million, which is far too many votes counted on Nov 4. (Philadelphia's population is ~1.6 million)
If the rows are instead interpreted as a running daily tally, then it explains away why a precinct receives the same ratio for long periods of time.
As for the "ratio transfers", precincts will disappear and appear once they get a new count. If all precincts essentially update their daily tally at the same time, then it's unlikely that the same ratio will be kept. Hence, prior precincts will suddenly disappear while new ones appear. (This is just speculation, however. To confirm, you'd have to look at the raw data to see how a precinct's numbers changed over time.)
Somewhat agree and disagree.
Supports fraud: Some of the ratios were really weird, like 4:65 or 5:31. It wasn't always 1:5 or 1:6.
Innocent explanation: If precincts take turns at the tabulator, that'd also explain why a ratio would abruptly disappear from X, Y, Z and reappear for A, B, C. Certain ratios appear consistently because reporting occurs after N ballots, and the ballots were shuffled (via mail) before counting.
EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean. There's just way too many instances of the same ratio in the same precinct. Because each row isn't necessarily "votes added". If it were "votes added", then Philadelphia would've had far too many votes added in the same day. 90K entries * (avg) 100 = 9 million. Already too many votes.
Does anyone have access to the raw data?
The author sorted the columns first by ratio, then by time, and then by precinct. With big data, it's possible to find trends that look weird but are actually benign, so be sure to verify for yourself.
The ratios themselves could occur randomly since there are so many rows in the spreadsheet. The appearance of the same ratio multiple times could be explained by a ballot shuffle; all mail-ins could've essentially been shuffled by the system. (That said, some of the numbers really don't seem very normal; especially the primes or multiples of primes.)
It is possible to explain the "ratio transfers" by having precincts take turns at the tabulator. If they take turns, a ratio will abruptly disappear for some precincts and appear for a new set of precincts.
This innocent explanation can be supported or rejected by looking at the raw data. If the data for a precinct is checked (sort by precinct, then by time), it'll be clear if the ratio transfer is an abrupt end to tabulation for that precinct (in which case it's an innocent explanation) or if the tabulation keeps going (a fraudulent explanation).
Platforms and publishers who try to debunk or hide information need to put something of value behind every action they take. Turns out they were wrong? Censored someone incorrectly? Pay the price!