There is a sort of brouhaha currently about the status or existence of "proof" that, in effect, the recent presidential election was "stolen" by the Biden camp. The Trump camp claims to have "proof" - as yet undisclosed - and its antagonists claim, "Bullshit," or sentiments to that effect.
But the nature of the voter fraud, if it does exist, does not allow for what lawyers call, "direct evidence," that is, videotape of people casting fraudulent ballots, or participants coming forward and saying, "Yeah, we destroyed Trump votes or changed them to Biden votes before they were counted." And certainly if there was a conspiracy to steal the election the perpetrators would not be so vulgar as to leave a trail of breadcrumbs to the direct evidence. And this is why the Left is figuratively screaming at the top of their figurative lungs, "YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!" They know that there is no DIRECT evidence of massive voter fraud. They planned it that way.
The mail-in ballot initiative, well-meaning - even necessary - as it might have been, introduced many new avenues to voter fraud, and those avenues were paved with Democrat rule-nuances that made fraud ever more possible, if not even likely. Consider the actual cancellation of the requirement on mail-in ballots to match signatures with those on file - consider it in light of the requirement to match those signatures for in-person voters. It is perverse.
Consider also the facts that: (1) a very close election was inevitable, given the REAL polling results - the ones that the NYT doesn't make public; (2) In a close election, the "swing" states are quite well known; (3) the swing states' outcomes are almost always determined by the outcome in specific Democrat-controlled cities, based on whether the Democrat gets, say, 90% of the vote or 100%; and (4) in this election, the numbers were closer to the extremely-suspicious 100%, in spite of the fact that this particular incumbent INCREASED his totals of People-of-Color voters in the entire remainder of the country.
Clearly, something is fishy.
In the world of statistics, it is considered that certain facts can be adduced without "direct evidence," or without knowing "all" the facts. For example, if you want to know how many bowlers in the United States are left-handed, you don't have to query every single bowler. You do a random sampling of a hundred bowlers around the country, and you know the actual percentage for all within a fraction of one percent. (Assuming it is a true random sampling).
I suspect that the "evidence" that will be produced by the Trump Camp in support of their voter-fraud case(s) will be just this sort of evidence. They audited a random sampling of Republican voters and found that for some percentage of them, they never requested mail-in ballots, but ballots were nevertheless requested in their names. They audited a number of Trump voters and found that some percentage of them had their votes incorrectly recorded for Biden. (I don't know how they would do this, but I assume it's possible). The specific cases will be made with sworn statements from the individuals whose experience was audited. And of course, you have the Pennsylvania case, where improper ballots (envelopes not meeting strict requirements) were counted, and the evidence of their flaws was effectively destroyed.
It is unlikely that any U.S. court would nullify the "certified" results of any election based on inferential evidence, but I suspect their case will be strongly made, and convincing to anyone willing to look rationally, without preconceived bias.
wattsupwiththat.com
Prominent Mathematician Flags Up to 100,000 PA Ballots
But the nature of the voter fraud, if it does exist, does not allow for what lawyers call, "direct evidence," that is, videotape of people casting fraudulent ballots, or participants coming forward and saying, "Yeah, we destroyed Trump votes or changed them to Biden votes before they were counted." And certainly if there was a conspiracy to steal the election the perpetrators would not be so vulgar as to leave a trail of breadcrumbs to the direct evidence. And this is why the Left is figuratively screaming at the top of their figurative lungs, "YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!" They know that there is no DIRECT evidence of massive voter fraud. They planned it that way.
The mail-in ballot initiative, well-meaning - even necessary - as it might have been, introduced many new avenues to voter fraud, and those avenues were paved with Democrat rule-nuances that made fraud ever more possible, if not even likely. Consider the actual cancellation of the requirement on mail-in ballots to match signatures with those on file - consider it in light of the requirement to match those signatures for in-person voters. It is perverse.
Consider also the facts that: (1) a very close election was inevitable, given the REAL polling results - the ones that the NYT doesn't make public; (2) In a close election, the "swing" states are quite well known; (3) the swing states' outcomes are almost always determined by the outcome in specific Democrat-controlled cities, based on whether the Democrat gets, say, 90% of the vote or 100%; and (4) in this election, the numbers were closer to the extremely-suspicious 100%, in spite of the fact that this particular incumbent INCREASED his totals of People-of-Color voters in the entire remainder of the country.
Clearly, something is fishy.
In the world of statistics, it is considered that certain facts can be adduced without "direct evidence," or without knowing "all" the facts. For example, if you want to know how many bowlers in the United States are left-handed, you don't have to query every single bowler. You do a random sampling of a hundred bowlers around the country, and you know the actual percentage for all within a fraction of one percent. (Assuming it is a true random sampling).
I suspect that the "evidence" that will be produced by the Trump Camp in support of their voter-fraud case(s) will be just this sort of evidence. They audited a random sampling of Republican voters and found that for some percentage of them, they never requested mail-in ballots, but ballots were nevertheless requested in their names. They audited a number of Trump voters and found that some percentage of them had their votes incorrectly recorded for Biden. (I don't know how they would do this, but I assume it's possible). The specific cases will be made with sworn statements from the individuals whose experience was audited. And of course, you have the Pennsylvania case, where improper ballots (envelopes not meeting strict requirements) were counted, and the evidence of their flaws was effectively destroyed.
It is unlikely that any U.S. court would nullify the "certified" results of any election based on inferential evidence, but I suspect their case will be strongly made, and convincing to anyone willing to look rationally, without preconceived bias.
Statistics: Evidence of Malfeasance in Reporting of Election Totals?
The departure from statistical expectations in the Biden vote counts is what is expected when some semi-arbitrary numbers, presumably small enough to not be easily noticed, are added to some of the…
wattsupwiththat.com
Prominent Mathematician Flags Up to 100,000 PA Ballots
