All of the percentages stabilize after the first day, Trump stays at 45.5, Biden at 52.5 and the 3P at 2.1. Which makes sense since 95% of the vote is in.
Agree. This data does not show voter fraud. If you calculate the votes as a range, there are no missing votes.
I did more analysis today using a minimum percent (the provided % -.0005), the percent, and the max percent (the provided % + .0004), and I agree. All of the "steals" can be explained by a broad range of possible votes.
The only real questions are those times the vote in a series is less than what was previously reported.
Between 2020-11-04T04:37:55Z and 2020-11-04T04:38:43Z there are -194,846 fewer votes. This seems to impact Trump more (loss of 105,876 and 109,429) because his rate also dropped from 43.7 to 42.5% at the same time. Biden's loss was less (-79,430 to -82,982) because his overall rate went up (54.2% to 55.5%).
Otherwise, there was a -800 vote loss, then a couple of -1s and a -2. Nothing that would cost the election.
I do not believe this data shows voter fraud.
Actually, the percentages for all three seem to level out about the same time. The first day of voting, there is some bouncing around of all three percentages, but then, each seem to lock in. Trump, always at 45.4%, Biden, always at 52.5, and the 3P always 2.1%. Which makes sense since 95% of the vote is in.
No one was protesting the counting of legal votes in Pennsylvania. They were protesting Pennsylvania ignoring Justice Alito's order to segregate and not count the late ballots.So frustrating hearing MSM anymore. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pennsylvania-ballots-gop/2020/11/06/064fdf94-2056-11eb-90dd-abd0f7086a91_story.html
It's not that hard to prove. But, we have a lot of work to do before we know with confidence this is happening. We do not know. Hell - the NYTimes could be fucking w us.
They could be changing the database directly. Truthfully, this is highly unlikely. Thankfully, we don't have to assume one way or the other, this can be proven.
Get the links out, sure. But, we are a long way from done. We have proven nothing.
I ran this for Nebraska and checked the official numbers from the sec of state's office. The numbers we are using aren't a perfect match and it is important to check those totals - see if they match the sec of state's official numbers. If they don't, document it. We need to understand the difference - might be as simple as a different point in time that the data was last updated. (It's not huge, but it needs to be explained.)
Since the data is so close between the NYT and the sec of state, if there is data manipulation, we can be fairly confident it happens within the state's system.
Go deeper. When I reviewed the NE district and precinct numbers, those numbers tie to the state numbers. Meaning, the precinct, district and state data is consistent within the state (and reasonably close to the NYT data we are using.)
So that would suggest one of three things:
- the negative vote lines we are seeing can be explained by someone who is knowledgeable about this data source. We need to find those data experts and have them tell us why those negative vote values are there. Could be legit.
- the negative vote lines will not be provable using the source data - that is the paper ballots, the mail in ballots, the scanner tape, etc. So, we need to understand the audit process each precinct goes through during the post audit. If you know someone who volunteers in this area, buy them lunch. Have them tell you what they do. Look at your state's website. They typically want transparency of process. Then, logically, walk it thru - if they follow the processes, would they notice the totals changed for their precinct? If so, we are very likely just not understanding the data. If not, then, we gotta think about how to involve them. Local media. Someone who isn't going to shut it down.
- The NYTimes is fucking w Trump and his people.
Good resource from an organization most states belong to on good practices for post-voting audits. This work is done in preparation for state certification - and they are in the midst of doing so now. Time is of the essence.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx
Remember when the Green Party raised funds for a recount in 2016 -- and everyone assumed it was to help Hillary?
Would you be able/willing to upload the file into github?
Where is Nebraska's?