It's only sacred insofar as it protects our sacred liberty.
The options that remain for preserving liberty are few. Somehow enforcing election laws on the state level, now that we know what we are up against, is a long shot but still possible. Passing constitutional amendments by convention of states is the most plausible in my opinion. After that the options are more grim.
Do you only watch highlights or something? He seems perfectly fine and normal.
Screw you and all your doom and gloom replies. You can bend over for the leftist indoctrination centers if you want. The rest of us know that it is on us to continue teaching the wisdom of the past to our children and to raise a generation that is not dependent on our sick public education system.
As far as college, at the very least we have to turn our backs to the most egregious cases, which are the liberal arts and soft sciences at the elite universities. There are other options even if you are too cowardly to consider them.
Yes, my take away is that we have to rely on wisdom, intuition and common sense instead of poll results. They were proven worthless in 2016 and 2020 and are continuing to degrade themselves. God only knows how many polls and other data the public has swallowed over the years that was just as suspect.
I just put in my time-off request for those same dates. Just a coincidence I am sure.
He has completed his rite of passage to manhood.
Sound liberal logic.
Chief Injustice Roberts
What? How else is one supposed to learn and be an informed citizen without watching things like this? It's not like they're speaking a foreign language.
Your question is right at the heart of the matter, very perceptive.
I've never attempted a log-scale histogram, not sure how to do it in Excel. I might look into that later though, so thanks.
Edit: I did figure out log-scale bins for the histogram, but I still like presenting the data points individually since it gives you an insight into the raw data. I'm adding the log-scale histograms to my Excel sheet though in case I present this elsewhere.
It's just the order in which the data were listed, so at the bottom are the wards that appear first in the data list, and at the top are the wards that appear last. I don't expect the order of the data has any meaning.
So, that is the argument by critics of the Benford law problem, that Biden's data isn't expected to fit the pattern. But I think the comparison of Biden's and Trump's data on a log-scale shows that Biden's ballot counts are unexpectedly clustered in that range.
In other words, his clustering in one order of magnitude, which is the reason he doesn't follow Benford's law, is the suspicious fact about this data. I would expect all the candidates to have a similar spread of the data, but only Trump's data is scattered in a way that fulfills Benford's law.
Making correlations great again!
Thanks! My source data is linked in the title. I also did my own calcs to verify the Benford Law predictions. Everything was done in Excel.
Thanks for keeping an eye on the enemy. I go there from time to time to see if there is any glimpse of sanity. Surprisingly, sorting comments by controversial often shows there are still a few unbanned sane people.
I can't answer that precisely, but look at the correlation graphs with Benford's law. Biden's data has an R-squared of .1148, which means that any correlation is very likely just chance. I'm not a statistician, but my quick probability calculations are as follows:
Likelihood that Trump's correlation with Benford's law is due to random chance: 0.0006%
Likelihood that Biden's correlation with Benford's law is due to random chance: 18.4%
I will work on those later and see if there are any flaws in those calcs.
I did my own research into Benford's law since I saw a few back-and-forth arguments about this. Generally, the principle is that the leading digit in many naturally occurring/random data sources follows a predictable pattern based on a logarithmic scale, which predicts that "1" should be the leading digit for about 30% of the data, "2" for about 18%, etc. all the way down to "9" for about 5%.
Not all data sets follow Benford's law. It is most expected in data that covers multiple orders of magnitude. These ballot data do cover 2-3 orders of magnitude, so I would expect to see Benford's law followed, but not necessarily perfectly.
Critics are claiming that Biden is expected to get 400-600 votes in all these wards based on percentages, but the log scale presentation shows that his ballot data is much more clustered than Trump’s, which to me is an important observation in validating the Benford law argument that there is likely fraud in these ballot counts.
My professors always taught me to LOOK at the data. The log-scale graph is an element you probably haven't seen elsewhere. The clustering on Biden's graph is surprising.
Not just Republicans, Trump's people.
I am also staying upbeat and optimistic, but it is just too much to guarantee what the Supreme Court will do. They have been extremely unreliable in defending the Constitution, especially with that snake John Roberts. We have been disappointed too many times not to be suspicious of what they will do.
Lol I love you, pede.
I'd be in favor of heavily monitored new votes in any state that changed election procedures in the last 90 days.
My wife and I changed our registrations to NPA. The sooner the GOP dies and the MAGA party takes its place, the better.