Debate Now MIT Analysis of Voting Machine "Fraud" Analysis Thread.

OP
flacaltenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,803
Reaction score
15,546
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
westwall Shelzin Turtlesoup -- Just off the top of my head who might be willing to put in the effort to review this...





I'm watching it now.
Kinda in limbo here. He uses strange term to describe his Y metric.. Calls it Individual vote for Trump. As opposed to SPartyVote for Trump.. I initially thought that was just "the other way" of filling out your ballot.. But APPARENTLY -- that's the TOTAL Trump vote in the precinct.. Need time to rethink and need to look up papers on using "Straight Party Voting" as an RELIABLE indicator of "partisianship" in any district..
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,937
Reaction score
21,517
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
OP
flacaltenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,803
Reaction score
15,546
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
westwall Shelzin Turtlesoup -- Just off the top of my head who might be willing to put in the effort to review this...





I'm watching it now.






Hmmm, our votes are stored as decimal fractions. That's an immediate red flag.
Yes it is.. It's even "a feature" on some manufacturer websites for "weighted voting".. Maybe in Africa or South America that has a meaningful application.. Actually reeks of the 3/5ths solution in the original Constitution. You think our "black buds" would be outraged...

Simple solution -- BAN decimal point math in voting S/Ware. Long Integers is all you need..

The only fractional math is to show the race results in percentages.,. The media can handle that.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,937
Reaction score
21,517
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
I HATE his presentation style. Truly annoying. However, if it is factual that the vote swings were occurring in only republican districts that is a HUGE red flag. So far the argument is compelling.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,937
Reaction score
21,517
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
westwall Shelzin Turtlesoup -- Just off the top of my head who might be willing to put in the effort to review this...





I'm watching it now.
Kinda in limbo here. He uses strange term to describe his Y metric.. Calls it Individual vote for Trump. As opposed to SPartyVote for Trump.. I initially thought that was just "the other way" of filling out your ballot.. But APPARENTLY -- that's the TOTAL Trump vote in the precinct.. Need time to rethink and need to look up papers on using "Straight Party Voting" as an RELIABLE indicator of "partisianship" in any district..






I agree, this is a weird way to describe it. Like I said, I hate his presentation style.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,937
Reaction score
21,517
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
I'm going to watch it again later. Right now i have to say that some of his assumptions are not supportable. At least in this particular way. He does raise some serious issues though. And I agree with making all of the vote machine software open source. This MUST be done. Or we go back to paper ballots. It's simply too easy to alter the vote tallies.
 
OP
flacaltenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,803
Reaction score
15,546
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
I'm going to watch it again later. Right now i have to say that some of his assumptions are not supportable. At least in this particular way. He does raise some serious issues though. And I agree with making all of the vote machine software open source. This MUST be done. Or we go back to paper ballots. It's simply too easy to alter the vote tallies.
EVEN IF his metrics for graphing are done RIGHT -- I have a serious issue with him claiming he knows EXACTLY how many votes "were skimmed and redistributed".. He HAS NOT PROVED a specific number because...

1) Using the SPVote preference as the SOLE indicator of how "Republican a district is" is ridiculous. I could think of several more solidly supportable things to use.. Like the registrar data for the county and the ratio of R to D..

2) NOTHING in his graphic metrics is about voter turnout advantage.

3) NOTHING in his graphing metrics is even about HOW MANY VOTES were cast. So all the XCel time spent in his "stolen vote" is not shown..

4) BIGGEST ISSUE is -- there's NOTHING IN THE PRESENTATION about the 3rd type of "voter method".. He addresses SPVoting and "Full Ballot" methods. But NOT A WORD OR VARIABLE for "absentee or mail ins" -- So how the fuck does he separate THAT from vote totals he's postulating are defining the results..

What IF -- a significant fraction of those Repubs -- "mailed it in" ??? MAYBE -- that's in the OVERALL TOTAL "individual Trump votes" and that's why there's a declining slope line in his result..

Because the "more Republican the district is -- LESS Republicans might have gone to the polls and instead MAILED it in !!!!



Dunno -- I'm still trying to test his method with select examples..
 

WelfareQueen

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
13,448
Reaction score
8,311
Points
1,265
Location
Uranus
I'm going to watch it again later. Right now i have to say that some of his assumptions are not supportable. At least in this particular way. He does raise some serious issues though. And I agree with making all of the vote machine software open source. This MUST be done. Or we go back to paper ballots. It's simply too easy to alter the vote tallies.

Again I think the only way to see if there is a variance in how the machines are tabulating votes would be a hand recount versus the machine count. I would love to see this in random precincts in Wayne County, Milwaukee County, Fulton County, and Philadelphia. If both equal the same number then there is not a problem. If there is any kind of significant variance the voting machines would need computer experts to do a detailed forensic audit. In my opinion that should be done anyway. I guess we'll see if any of that is done.
 

WelfareQueen

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
13,448
Reaction score
8,311
Points
1,265
Location
Uranus
I'm going to watch it again later. Right now i have to say that some of his assumptions are not supportable. At least in this particular way. He does raise some serious issues though. And I agree with making all of the vote machine software open source. This MUST be done. Or we go back to paper ballots. It's simply too easy to alter the vote tallies.
EVEN IF his metrics for graphing are done RIGHT -- I have a serious issue with him claiming he knows EXACTLY how many votes "were skimmed and redistributed".. He HAS NOT PROVED a specific number because...

1) Using the SPVote preference as the SOLE indicator of how "Republican a district is" is ridiculous. I could think of several more solidly supportable things to use.. Like the registrar data for the county and the ratio of R to D..

2) NOTHING in his graphic metrics is about voter turnout advantage.

3) NOTHING in his graphing metrics is even about HOW MANY VOTES were cast. So all the XCel time spent in his "stolen vote" is not shown..

4) BIGGEST ISSUE is -- there's NOTHING IN THE PRESENTATION about the 3rd type of "voter method".. He addresses SPVoting and "Full Ballot" methods. But NOT A WORD OR VARIABLE for "absentee or mail ins" -- So how the fuck does he separate THAT from vote totals he's postulating are defining the results..

What IF -- a significant fraction of those Repubs -- "mailed it in" ??? MAYBE -- that's in the OVERALL TOTAL "individual Trump votes" and that's why there's a declining slope line in his result..

Because the "more Republican the district is -- LESS Republicans might have gone to the polls and instead MAILED it in !!!!



Dunno -- I'm still trying to test his method with select examples..

According to media reports there were 2.5 million mail in votes in Pennsylvania. 2 million of these votes by report went to Joe Biden. That is 80% of the mail in vote total. To your point, the professor has no mention of mail in votes nor do I see anything in his presentation factoring in those votes. The rejection rate prior to this election cycle for mail in votes nationally was roughly around 1%. This election cycle in Pennsylvania the reported rejection rate was .003%. If true, that alone would have given Biden about 18,000 more votes in Pennsylvania than Trump nefariously.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about this election. My hope is there is full transparency. I have no problem accepting the outcome either way as long as the outstanding questions are openly and honestly addressed.
 
OP
flacaltenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,803
Reaction score
15,546
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
I'm going to watch it again later. Right now i have to say that some of his assumptions are not supportable. At least in this particular way. He does raise some serious issues though. And I agree with making all of the vote machine software open source. This MUST be done. Or we go back to paper ballots. It's simply too easy to alter the vote tallies.
EVEN IF his metrics for graphing are done RIGHT -- I have a serious issue with him claiming he knows EXACTLY how many votes "were skimmed and redistributed".. He HAS NOT PROVED a specific number because...

1) Using the SPVote preference as the SOLE indicator of how "Republican a district is" is ridiculous. I could think of several more solidly supportable things to use.. Like the registrar data for the county and the ratio of R to D..

2) NOTHING in his graphic metrics is about voter turnout advantage.

3) NOTHING in his graphing metrics is even about HOW MANY VOTES were cast. So all the XCel time spent in his "stolen vote" is not shown..

4) BIGGEST ISSUE is -- there's NOTHING IN THE PRESENTATION about the 3rd type of "voter method".. He addresses SPVoting and "Full Ballot" methods. But NOT A WORD OR VARIABLE for "absentee or mail ins" -- So how the fuck does he separate THAT from vote totals he's postulating are defining the results..

What IF -- a significant fraction of those Repubs -- "mailed it in" ??? MAYBE -- that's in the OVERALL TOTAL "individual Trump votes" and that's why there's a declining slope line in his result..

Because the "more Republican the district is -- LESS Republicans might have gone to the polls and instead MAILED it in !!!!



Dunno -- I'm still trying to test his method with select examples..

According to media reports there were 2.5 million mail in votes in Pennsylvania. 2 million of these votes by report went to Joe Biden. That is 80% of the mail in vote total. To your point, the professor has no mention of mail in votes nor do I see anything in his presentation factoring in those votes. The rejection rate prior to this election cycle for mail in votes nationally was roughly around 1%. This election cycle in Pennsylvania the reported rejection rate was .003%. If true, that alone would have given Biden about 18,000 more votes in Pennsylvania than Trump nefariously.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about this election. My hope is there is full transparency. I have no problem accepting the outcome either way as long as the outstanding questions are openly and honestly addressed.
They took the "count every vote" meme to extremes. In some cases, going to court to get waivers for even signature checks.. Which I assume COULD mean the ABSENCE of a signature. But when even absentee balloting EXPECTED rejection rates of up to 2% (which is the way I heard it) and you've not created a pile with more then 0.1% -- the election was GREATLY flawed..
 

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
15,111
Reaction score
4,816
Points
380
Location
Wherever I May Roam
I'm going to watch it again later. Right now i have to say that some of his assumptions are not supportable. At least in this particular way. He does raise some serious issues though. And I agree with making all of the vote machine software open source. This MUST be done. Or we go back to paper ballots. It's simply too easy to alter the vote tallies.
EVEN IF his metrics for graphing are done RIGHT -- I have a serious issue with him claiming he knows EXACTLY how many votes "were skimmed and redistributed".. He HAS NOT PROVED a specific number because...

1) Using the SPVote preference as the SOLE indicator of how "Republican a district is" is ridiculous. I could think of several more solidly supportable things to use.. Like the registrar data for the county and the ratio of R to D..

2) NOTHING in his graphic metrics is about voter turnout advantage.

3) NOTHING in his graphing metrics is even about HOW MANY VOTES were cast. So all the XCel time spent in his "stolen vote" is not shown..

4) BIGGEST ISSUE is -- there's NOTHING IN THE PRESENTATION about the 3rd type of "voter method".. He addresses SPVoting and "Full Ballot" methods. But NOT A WORD OR VARIABLE for "absentee or mail ins" -- So how the fuck does he separate THAT from vote totals he's postulating are defining the results..

What IF -- a significant fraction of those Repubs -- "mailed it in" ??? MAYBE -- that's in the OVERALL TOTAL "individual Trump votes" and that's why there's a declining slope line in his result..

Because the "more Republican the district is -- LESS Republicans might have gone to the polls and instead MAILED it in !!!!



Dunno -- I'm still trying to test his method with select examples..

According to media reports there were 2.5 million mail in votes in Pennsylvania. 2 million of these votes by report went to Joe Biden. That is 80% of the mail in vote total. To your point, the professor has no mention of mail in votes nor do I see anything in his presentation factoring in those votes. The rejection rate prior to this election cycle for mail in votes nationally was roughly around 1%. This election cycle in Pennsylvania the reported rejection rate was .003%. If true, that alone would have given Biden about 18,000 more votes in Pennsylvania than Trump nefariously.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about this election. My hope is there is full transparency. I have no problem accepting the outcome either way as long as the outstanding questions are openly and honestly addressed.
They took the "count every vote" meme to extremes. In some cases, going to court to get waivers for even signature checks.. Which I assume COULD mean the ABSENCE of a signature. But when even absentee balloting EXPECTED rejection rates of up to 2% (which is the way I heard it) and you've not created a pile with more then 0.1% -- the election was GREATLY flawed..
LOL ... Stick with me, because it's not a rant.

"Hello Ma'am ... I am Jerald from Black Lives Matter, and I want to ask you if you have completed your mail-in ballot for this coming election?

Oh, you haven't, well it is very important, so let's sit down with it and take a look, why don't we?
Yes ma'am, we're all done now, you even signed it like you are supposed to.

Would you like one of our representatives to come by to help you next time?
Well that's just great, we'll put this right here in the mailbox, and thanks again for the milk and cookies."


They didn't have to cheat.
They didn't have to make the mistakes expected.

All they had to do was, get your attention with a riot.
Reduce the well-funded and organized rioters on the street by 70%, the last 30 days before the election.
Put them on a bus to Detroit, Philadelphia or wherever.
Have them simply going door to door actually helping someone fill out their ballot without mistakes.

The Republicans aren't going to be there, and they would never know.
They would be screaming about corruption, and a bunch of protests and riots.
While instead of protesting Justice Barret's appointment, they were eating milk and cookies and getting the job done on the ground.

BLM could have been playing chess, while the Republicans were playing Sorry,
Knowing damn well they would never see it coming, even if they were looking right at it.

But that's just a plausible theory, we won't know unless we ask, or investigate.
Same thing with the machine source codes ... :thup:

.
 
OP
flacaltenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,803
Reaction score
15,546
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
I'm going to watch it again later. Right now i have to say that some of his assumptions are not supportable. At least in this particular way. He does raise some serious issues though. And I agree with making all of the vote machine software open source. This MUST be done. Or we go back to paper ballots. It's simply too easy to alter the vote tallies.
EVEN IF his metrics for graphing are done RIGHT -- I have a serious issue with him claiming he knows EXACTLY how many votes "were skimmed and redistributed".. He HAS NOT PROVED a specific number because...

1) Using the SPVote preference as the SOLE indicator of how "Republican a district is" is ridiculous. I could think of several more solidly supportable things to use.. Like the registrar data for the county and the ratio of R to D..

2) NOTHING in his graphic metrics is about voter turnout advantage.

3) NOTHING in his graphing metrics is even about HOW MANY VOTES were cast. So all the XCel time spent in his "stolen vote" is not shown..

4) BIGGEST ISSUE is -- there's NOTHING IN THE PRESENTATION about the 3rd type of "voter method".. He addresses SPVoting and "Full Ballot" methods. But NOT A WORD OR VARIABLE for "absentee or mail ins" -- So how the fuck does he separate THAT from vote totals he's postulating are defining the results..

What IF -- a significant fraction of those Repubs -- "mailed it in" ??? MAYBE -- that's in the OVERALL TOTAL "individual Trump votes" and that's why there's a declining slope line in his result..

Because the "more Republican the district is -- LESS Republicans might have gone to the polls and instead MAILED it in !!!!



Dunno -- I'm still trying to test his method with select examples..

According to media reports there were 2.5 million mail in votes in Pennsylvania. 2 million of these votes by report went to Joe Biden. That is 80% of the mail in vote total. To your point, the professor has no mention of mail in votes nor do I see anything in his presentation factoring in those votes. The rejection rate prior to this election cycle for mail in votes nationally was roughly around 1%. This election cycle in Pennsylvania the reported rejection rate was .003%. If true, that alone would have given Biden about 18,000 more votes in Pennsylvania than Trump nefariously.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about this election. My hope is there is full transparency. I have no problem accepting the outcome either way as long as the outstanding questions are openly and honestly addressed.
They took the "count every vote" meme to extremes. In some cases, going to court to get waivers for even signature checks.. Which I assume COULD mean the ABSENCE of a signature. But when even absentee balloting EXPECTED rejection rates of up to 2% (which is the way I heard it) and you've not created a pile with more then 0.1% -- the election was GREATLY flawed..
LOL ... Stick with me, because it's not a rant.

"Hello Ma'am ... I am Jerald from Black Lives Matter, and I want to ask you if you have completed your mail-in ballot for this coming election?

Oh, you haven't, well it is very important, so let's sit down with it and take a look, why don't we?
Yes ma'am, we're all done now, you even signed it like you are supposed to.

Would you like one of our representatives to come by to help you next time?
Well that's just great, we'll put this right here in the mailbox, and thanks again for the milk and cookies."


They didn't have to cheat.
They didn't have to make the mistakes expected.

All they had to do was, get your attention with a riot.
Reduce the well-funded and organized rioters on the street by 70%, the last 30 days before the election.
Put them on a bus to Detroit, Philadelphia or wherever.
Have them simply going door to door actually helping someone fill out their ballot without mistakes.

The Republicans aren't going to be there, and they would never know.
They would be screaming about corruption, and a bunch of protests and riots.
While instead of protesting Justice Barret's appointment, they were eating milk and cookies and getting the job done on the ground.

BLM could have been playing chess, while the Republicans were playing Sorry,
Knowing damn well they would never see it coming, even if they were looking right at it.

But that's just a plausible theory, we won't know unless we ask, or investigate.
Same thing with the machine source codes ... :thup:

.

Look up House Resolution 1 -- the 1st thing that Pelosi did in that Congress. It reads like a manual for creating a one party system.. Or at the least -- interfering with elections causing BOTH SIDES to run elections like 2 giant corporations camping on your doorstep while you vote. Why do you think we've always had "voting booths"?????? Some with curtains on them..


What you describe is "ballot harvesting".. It gets worse because people can be PAID to do it..

But can't really swing with this here in this thread because that's not really the topic..
 

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
15,111
Reaction score
4,816
Points
380
Location
Wherever I May Roam
Look up House Resolution 1 -- the 1st thing that Pelosi did in that Congress. It reads like a manual for creating a one party system.. Or at the least -- interfering with elections causing BOTH SIDES to run elections like 2 giant corporations camping on your doorstep while you vote. Why do you think we've always had "voting booths"?????? Some with curtains on them..


What you describe is "ballot harvesting".. It gets worse because people can be PAID to do it..

But can't really swing with this here in this thread because that's not really the topic..
Agreed ... I only tried to tie it with the topic in a sense of saying, we can make things more complicated than they are.
And in the same sense, It is possible we haven't done due diligence in investigating, or in our own efforts.

It's clear that Dr Shiva raised concerns not even directly associated to the scatter plots.
You and I may see something different in the data.

I am still certain that it is difficult to have confidence in our current operations after watching the presentation you supplied.

Thanks

.
 

HaShev

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,818
Reaction score
2,368
Points
265
Bottom line:
If sworn witnesses signed affidavits say the Dominion program was specifically designed to steal votes and votes were switched per a county commissioner who found the "glitch" and other countries had switched votes with this software with witnesses testimony to that, then it either is good enough for the courts or the Congress is in trouble for abuse of power and treason in using less witness testimony & evidence in trying to overthrow an elected president and taking that sham to the senate in front of a judge while perjuring themselves in the process.
If they deny this then they set up greater evidence in a case against the coup attempt.
Dems would lose in thinking they won.
Obamas own words recently are just adding more to the case against OBAMA'S acts, by his own deflected admissions and in Dems deflecting the call to arrest the President in retaliation and not for crimes is even further evidence of their abuses of power and racketeering threats..
 
Last edited:
OP
flacaltenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,803
Reaction score
15,546
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
MIT Shiva Ayyaduri Analysis


RSPV = Republican Straight Party vote (for Trump)
RFBV = Republican Full Ballot Vote fraction of OVT
CPV = Cross party vote
OVT = Other votes for Trump
OVT = RFBV + CPV (does RFBV INCLUDE mail-ins? Dunno)

So the formulation in the presentation (OVT - RSPV) = RFBV + CPV - RSPV (no way of KNOWING the CPV without registration data it's just and assumption made in the presentation)

The Y axis metric is ACTUALLY (RFBV + CPV - RSPV)
The X axis just RSPV.

SUMMARY

What the presenters alleged to have found was a "man-made" artifact in actual Michigan precinct data that was purposely inserted into the voting tally machines. The assumption was that the "redder" the precinct, the more votes there should be for Trump.. Their use of RSPV is a proxy for ACTUAL number of Repubs in that precinct. I question WHY they fixated on the "two choices in method of voting -- Straight party vote or Full Ballot vote as their PRIMARY variables. Because clearly these variables are a fixed percentage of REPUBLICAN voters in that district that chose either method. EVERY variable in the axis metrics DOES NOT INCLUDE any feature of the vote count that has any numbers for the competitiveness of that race. It LACKS:::::

1) Any relationship to competitive voter TURNOUT advantage in that precinct.
2) Any numerical clues as to the SIZE of that precinct and TOTAL #s cast in the race.
3) Any useful forensic information about the REGISTRATION declarations in that precinct.

Note that RSPV + RFBV as percentages HAVE to Equal 100% of the Republicans that voted REGARDLESS of turn-out or the size of the registered Repubs in the district. BOTH variables are SIMPLY "choices of METHOD of voting"..

Actually was 3 choices of voting method for (R)s to vote. Dr. Shiva Analysis missed mail-ins???
Or was the data spilled into the graph including mail-ins?? Mail-ins offer the same 2 choices, but the fact the graph behaved the SAME for early voting as it did for "day of" voting makes me wonder if mail-ins were even counted when this data was spilled into the graphs. Mail-ins wouldn't reduce the choices of Full Ballot or Straight ballot, but would interfere with conclusions on how the vote SHOULD have went.

If the 2 primary variables HAVE to add to 100% -- then for the Yaxis = (RFBV + CPV - RSPV) -- As RSPV goes up as the "districts get REDDER then the other of the 2 choices of method goes down by the SAME AMOUNT. You "rob from Peter to pay Paul". So as the RSPV goes UP -- The Yaxis line follows with a linear decline.

So because the SET-UP methodology was botched by a fascination with using RSPV as indicator of HOW RED a precinct was -- what was actually PROVED is their contention that RSPV is one way to show the redness of a precinct.The only time you'd expect to equal zero and fall on their 0% line is when the (R) voters split their voting method exactly 50%/50% between the 2 choices. And UNFORTUNATELY -- that's the EXACT scenario chosen to present the "Two Types of Voting" graphic that I post below. Don't suspect they did this on purpose.

Maybe the entire production and thinking was just too hasty. This is Algebra 1 level math. But it demonstrates that correctly SETTING UP THE PROBLEM is the larger part of driving a mathematical analysis.

So below I show a couple examples using DIFFERENT data points for the "voting preference" and how the SLOPE of ANY DATA poured into that graph will be a mostly linear line with a negative slope. I also was curious about how to pick a better problem set-up and ventured a couple ideas on how to "maybe" forensically find "man-made" anomalies in the voting results.

**************************************************************************************************************
Examples showing that a 50/50 split in choosing one or the other methods is the ONLY expected solution for Y=0 ::::

From the "Two Types of Voting" chart..

50/50 split on choice between RFBV vs RSPV.. Results in 65% and 60% vote total for Trump respectively.

That corresponds to vote percentage of 62.5% Trump, 37.5% for Biden.
Or 125 votes for Trump, 75 for Biden.

What happens when you DONT assume a 50/50 split in the choice of HOW they voted? Leave CPV the same 5%.

So try 70% RSPV and 30% RFBV::::

So given his example the outcome was 125 for Trump, 75 for Biden. That CANNOT CHANGE depending JUST on the METHOD that Republicans chose to use..

70% of 125 = 87.5 votes with RSPV (cant help the fraction)
30% of 125 = 37.5 votes with RFBV (cant help the fraction)

We've changed nothing BUT the way (R)s chose to vote.. So the Y metric becomes assuming CPV =
Y = (RFBV + CPV - RSPV) = 37.5 + CPV - 87.5 = -50 + CPV. HOW DID WE CHANGE Y simply by changing the assumption on how many folks voted Straight Party ticket !!!! Y WAS a +5%...

It's because Y is DEPENDENT on PREFERENCE to vote Full Ballot or Straight Ballot.. And as RSPV goes UP -- RPFB MUST go down. THe vote total for Repubs must remain the same. The 125 votes in this case that were cast for trump.

So the assumption that RSPV should indicate the final vote for Trump aint shown by the chosen Y metric. Part of the problem was choosing a deceptive 50/50 in vote preference. Get into this more later.

***********************************************************************************************

You can skip this part -- but lets do the same thing assuming a 40% RSPV and a 60% RFBV..

40% of 125 = 50 votes with RSPV (cant help the fraction)
60% of 125 = 75 votes with RFBV (cant help the fraction)

We've changed nothing BUT the way (R)s chose to vote.. So the Y metric becomes:

Y = (RFBV + CPV - RSPV) = 75 + CPV - 50 = 25 + CPV. HOW DID WE CHANGE Y simply by changing the assumption on how many folks voted Straight Party ticket !!!!

***********************************************************************************************************

My two examples bracket either side of 50/50 voting preference in his set-up.. Plot the 3 on his graph and we get a line that goes down linearly from 40% RSPV on the X-axis (40,25+CPV) to 70% RSPV on the X axis (70,-50 + CPV). It goes thru Y=0 at the unfortunate 50/50 vote method point he chose to set up the problem. In fact 50/50 is the ONLY Y solution that falls on their "0% axis".. Accident? or On Purpose.. Dunno.

At this point I'd LIKE to introduce variables to FIX this. But that would change the METHOD selected by the authors.. And I offer an example of that below in "Was there a way to do this right?"

If you look at the SLOPE of graph metrics which is simply Y/X you get:

(RFBV + CPV - RSPV)/ RSPV (ignoring CPV) . An alternate expression for the slope is --> (RFBV/RSVP) - 1

You can easily see that as RSPV GOES UP (Deeper RED district) -- RFBV is gonna decline. Because of the fixed number of Repubs in that precinct and the fact that the 2 methods have to add to 100%..

ANY data spilled into a graph with that metric is GUARANTEED to be a line with a negative slope.. I'm fairly certain that if you plotted the results for ONLY Dems as they did here for ONLY Repubs, you'd get the same result.



WAS THERE A WAY TO DO THIS RIGHT????

The objective here was to find "vote flipping" from (R) to (D) due to exploitation of a "feature" embedded into the voting system to "weight" or fractional manipulate the results. Any feature like that would be EASILY detectable if the PRODUCT of the weighting factors for (D)s and (R)s did NOT equal 1.. Because it would be betrayed by the fact that the numerical sum of (D) and (R) votes would not equal the VOTE TOTAL..

You would have some choices on HOW to apply that..

1) At the individual precincts versus just at the STATE level tally center.

2) ALL precincts or just "some precincts"

3) Same weight for all -- or a weight related to the "blue/red color" of the precints.

Doubt that ALL precincts would be manipulated. TACTICALLY hard to do.. And some precincts are just too polarized for this to pass smell test.

And getting fancy by SKIMMING more votes in DEEP RED counties would also raise alarms. Which is what Dr.Shiva alleged happened.

That's too simple to find. So the least detectable method would be FLAT weighting over a few select precincts at the State level of the tally.

I think the authors got too fascinated by the chance to use Straight Party Voting as a proxy for how RED a precinct is.. The BETTER approach would be to get publicly published data for %(R) and %(D) in each precinct. Using (%R) would NOT not be dependent at all on what method -- straight party or full ballot or mail-in -- they chose to use. Any "party cross-over" in the real data would just be
noise on the graph. (maybe HIGHER than what's shown in THEIR graphs - because INDEPENDENTS now decide elections pretty much). And Independents tend to wain off at both extremes of the X axis.

That would be the X axis. It ranges from 0 to 100.

For the Y axis -- Just use %TrumpVote which = RepubTrump + CPV.The suspected FRAUD would be the outliers that dont fit to the linear regression of the line.

The EXPECTED slope would Y/X = (%Trump) / (%R). As %R goes up -- the %Trump should go up. Maybe with some "never Trump" effect and the variance from CPV. It's ESSENTIALLY what they TRIED to do before all the different choices of voting METHOD kicked in.. Have a direct measure of"party loyalty for X -- and a measure of the voting RESULT as the Y variable.

Dont KNOW if a scatterplot would REVEAL hijinks in just a few select precincts. Think there's too much "independent" factor in voting nowadays. And FLIPPING 4% or LESS as a weight -- would be lost in the noise of the 40% of Independents and 3rd parties in the vote.. EXCEPT at the FAR ENDS of the X axis where Indies just become a "rare species".

My opinion is to FIND exploitation of "weighting" vulnerabilities in voting systems, you pretty much have to CATCH THEM IN THE ACT of cranking in the weighting factors..


Scholars have shown Democratic constituencies are more likely to vote
straight ticket than other groups.8 Studies from selected elections show that
Democrats are advantaged more than Republicans by straight party voting in
vote share. There's graph in there showing SPV DECREASED for Texas Repubs in 2016 to 2018 by 10% once Trump was elected.. And historically about 1/2 of them voted SPV until it was eliminated there in 2019.


MIT Michigan 2020_3.png


Note in THIS slide what he calls INDIVIDUAL VOTES is the RFBV.. The 50% of Repubs that chose Full Ballot. And shortly after he plots it on the 0% line. It's the ONLY CASE that falls on the 0% line if you define "individual votes" this way..

MIT Michigan 2020_4.jpg


However in THIS slide -- he appears to be using the TOTAL Trump vote but still referring to it as the "Individual vote" because you can not have 60% of Repubs choosing Straight Party and 65% of them choosing "individual" or Full Ballot.. You've just manufactured 125% of Republicans voting !!!

That's what initially confused me.. But what he uses on the ACTUAL Michigan data charts is the RFBV that he calculates from the vote totals. Not this ALTERNATIVE interpretation in the last slide. So my analysis above is correct if you look at what he extracts from the election results.
 
Last edited:
OP
flacaltenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,803
Reaction score
15,546
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Watched it again.....Read the analysis from guys I can more-or-less trust,..

Though it looks and sounds plausible on the surface, I say....

Wish I had the energy to clarify a couple points with him.. Read my captions under the slides above. It's INCONSISTENT definition of stuff that got him in trouble.. I posted my last "summary" because I had spent another 3 or 4 hours trying to figure out what they TRIED to do.. And maybe, as I wrote above -- it's much simpler than using a State that allows Straight Party ballots. And getting wound around the axle about what METHOD people chose to use to vote..

Anyways -- Hope the "defense team" isn't relying on this presentation.. At least until it gets cleaned and more precise..
 

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,277
Reaction score
16,011
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
The companies themselves have PROPRIETARY rights.
Which are inferior to our national right to inspect our vote counting process to validate it and assure electoral integrity of the system as a whole.

No one should ever be given a contract to count US votes if the vender hides their code as a 'proprietary interest' which is bullshit anyway.
 

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,277
Reaction score
16,011
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
I've heard that any number of them were connected to the internet for "updates"....If that's true, then someone who knows what they were doing could install the hack right then.
Isnt it illegal to modify vote counting software AFTER it has been CERTIFIED? Kinda NEGATES the whole idea of certification, no?
 

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,277
Reaction score
16,011
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
RSPV = Republican Straight Party vote (for Trump)
RFBV = Republican Full Ballot Vote fraction of OVT
CPV = Cross party vote
OVT = Other votes for Trump
OVT = RFBV + CPV (does RFBV INCLUDE mail-ins? Dunno)

So the formulation in the presentation (OVT - RSPV) = RFBV + CPV - RSPV (no way of KNOWING the CPV without registration data it's just and assumption made in the presentation)

The Y axis metric is ACTUALLY (RFBV + CPV - RSPV)
The X axis just RSPV.
Too many acronyms!, lol. The votes considered vary by which graph they are using, but he repesents early votes and Election Day votes, no mail-ins were considered apparently. (at 13:50ish in the video)

Basically the BOTTOM axis (referred to as the 'X' axis) is the PERCENTAGE of the vote that was a straight Republican vote, all for Trump for that precinct.

This is used as a sort of norm for that precinct, but I dont know how reliable that is as a guide for the OTHER ballots that are not Straight Republican Party votes that still went to Trump. A big assumption on his part, but statistically it can average out.

So if we discount straight party ticket voters, would the remaining vote for Trump still be in the same percentage of the total vote as is the county straight party vote?

Not sure how that is assumed/established as it seems to dismiss an alienation of nonpartisan Republican voters. Maybe they voted less for Trump because they were so sick of hearing all the other GOP squawking for him?

But I would EXPECT the percentage of non-straight ticket voters to be less than the straight ticket vote, if the nonticket vote is average as the Republican straight ticket vote goes up.



1606850296707.png
For brevity, SRPT = straight Party Republican Ticket as a percentage of the whole vote for that precinct, and
IPT is the percentage of the precinct that did not vote straight party and also voted for Trump (precluding all straight Democrat votes by definition).
At a precinct with 20% SRPT would have a 27% IPT at a +7% difference (yellow line)
A precinct with 30ish SRPT would have a 30ish IPT at a 0% diff
A precinct with a 40ish SRPT would have a 30ish IPT at a -10% diff, etc, and at the high partisan Republican precincts
a 60ish SRPT would show a -30 diff with a 30ish IPT.

What this shows is that the ratio of straight Republican Party voters is unrelated to the percentage of votes Trump got from INDEPENDENT individual candidate ballot voters that did not go with a straight Republican vote.

Yes, I am going to write to Dr Shiva and ask him about this.

His primary assumption seems to be faulty.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top