Did the Computers Report or Structure Voting Results?

My brother sent this link to three engineers from three different party backgrounds who have examined the patterns in Michigan precincts. They seem quite sure that an algorithm has been applied to the precincts that were more heavily Republican; the pattern in these precincts are remarkably similar. They seem to have had some experience not only with computers but with voting machines (one is an election commissioner and another had run for office).

I remember my awe years ago at Shannon Love’s analysis of arguments in the Lancet and how interesting and insightful his analysis was. I have learned nothing since then, so can’t judge these men’s methods but their graphs do appear to make their points – ones that fit my intuitions but perhaps it is merely my hopes.

I would like to know what the many more knowledgeable people here think about their presentation; it is longish and could be smoother, but I’m thankful for their effort to reach people like me and found it absorbing.

47 thoughts on “Did the Computers Report or Structure Voting Results?”

  1. The most common criticism I’ve heard of their analysis is that they didn’t do a similar comparison of Biden votes to see if the relationship is the same.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that these kind of analysis don’t tell you much about the potential for fraud. A similar one was comparing other statewide races, usually Senate, to the Presidential vote but you can find states where Trump and Biden run well ahead of or behind Senate candidates. In Georgia Biden running far ahead of the Senate candidates was cited as suggestive of fraud. However if you look at Iowa Trump’s margin over Biden was about 8x the difference between Ernst (GOP winner) and Greenfield (Dem loser), and nobody suspects fraud in favor of Trump there. Similarly you can find states like Colorado and Montana where the Senate candidate got more votes than the Presidential candidate from the same party but still lost their election.

  2. mandrewa said…
    Achilles said, “They would never be stored as “fractions.” Saying this makes no sense from a programming point of view. That would be a Float or Double depending on the programming language. The variations on Integer are only in how large of a number you can store there and they are used because they don’t have a decimal point and whether or not you can store negative numbers. Double and Float allow you to have specific numbers in front of and behind the decimal and negative numbers.

    “It is possible that Dr. Shiva thought the reporter of the story was an idiot and that is a good assumption to make of a journalist. But most people would understand if you told them the numbers were stored as decimals.

    “Doubles and Floats take up more memory and far more computer cycles to process. You only use them when you need them. There is never a need for .9 votes or 1.1 votes.”

    Votes in the Dominion software are stored as doubles, or in other words as floating point numbers. Or at least they are according to Shiva. I agree this makes zero sense. But your assumption that it isn’t happening because it makes no sense may be wrong.

    Shiva also shows in documentation from Dominion that Dominion was compelled to reveal by court order that they have functions that allow the user to give different weights to different categories of voters.

    Now I’m not terribly inclined to trust Shiva because I believe he has deceived us in other things, but if it is true that Dominion vote counting software has these functions in it then this is direct evidence of an intent to commit vote fraud. It doesn’t matter whether we can actually prove these functions were used or not, any election conducted with software with functions like this in it should be assumed to be fraudulent.


  3. Very forward looking for Dominion to include social justice reparation voting in their software. Perhaps this was a trial run in the contested states. At any rate it is likely to become a thing. Could work like allowing certain voters to dip their fingers multiple times in the ink. Less messy and more scaleable since you can exceed a factor of 10 or even 20.


  4. This is what I asked about yesterday–are there paper ballots that were allegedly counted wrong, and a recheck could discover, or we talking about purely electronic votes, which would be insane and in which case we’re screwed.

  5. Score Big Gains in House, Pelosi Barely Hanging On

    House seats must be harder to steal systematically. Trump had 4 million more votes in 2020 than in 2016, he had coattails. Another reason to be suspicious of the election returns.

  6. Sorry error in previous post. Trump had 11 million more votes in 2020 than in 2016. Biden had 14 million more than Hillary. Another reason to be suspicious of the election returns.

  7. I watched the whole thing, God help me.

    I think their presentation very much provides a certain sort of evidence for fraud. Long ago, when I was in high school, my math teacher instructed us to work our equations and then do a check for reasonableness. That is, if you know for certain that your answer should produce a positive number and it doesn’t, then you can be pretty sure you’ve done something wrong.

    It simply does not seem reasonable to me that Trump would actually lose votes in the sort of linear fashion that they note. I can see why Trump might do worse than other GOP candidates- but not that worse, and not that regularly.

    But it does seem reasonable in light of what I’ve lately learned about Dominion Voting Systems- “dominion is ready to make a difference in your next election”- and the democrats who work there. That is, these folks are quite interested in making sure the correct people “win” elections, which isn’t anyone who supports the Demon Trump.

    I think the reasonable conclusion is that this sort of software- I don’t know if it’s always been from Dominion- has been used for many years to swing elections. I know I’ve been seeing claims that people have been watching their votes switch from GOP to demonrat since at least 2006.

    But I also think it hasn’t been enough, especially this election. Hence the desperate, clumsy, and obvious fraud the left has also forced to undertake this time around. I also find it very interesting to note the significant swing to Trump that occurred in (e.g.) the Texas borderlands. It seems reasonable to me that the left saw no need to engage in any sort of fraud in that area, considering how thoroughly they’d beat the GOP in 2016. End result, the Trump vote in 2020 there vastly exceeded the Trump vote of 2016.

    All in all, I think there presentation fits pretty well with what I find reasonable, although I think more is going on. I don’t think they’d disagree with me on that.

  8. From the Wiki, not that its an infallible: “V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai (born Vellayappa Ayyadurai Shiva,[2] December 2, 1963)[3] is an Indian-American scientist, engineer, politician, entrepreneur, and promoter of conspiracy theories and unfounded medical claims.”

    Yeah, the inventor of email … NOT! ;)

  9. “… promoter of conspiracy theories and unfounded medical claims.”

    Typical Wikipedic dismissal of viewpoints they don’t like.


    Let’s see what the President’s lawyers file with the court. We don’t know what they have, we don’t know what they are going to file, we don’t even know where they are going to file.

  10. The illustrative joke in business processes is that of quick or cheap or good, buyers may choose only two.

    Clearly states counties and cities have opted for “cheap”. A lot of local political pressure to do so and not much to do otherwise. Cheap re-uses old code from prior systems, even though old vulnerabilities are inherited right along. Cheap tends to use open or at least hackable communication channels. Cheap treats “fuzzy” by setting a binary — fuzzy either fails or fuzzy passes, it doesn’t get routinely sent for eyeballs on interpretation. Cheap has a lot of issues built into the criteria.

    News organizations, even more than citizens/voters press hard for “fast”. They start with their pre-election polling data, and set up magazine covers and ledes to release on the first hint of a confirming result. They take “exit polls” thru the election process. They take the “early voting” results and report it, again under a confirmation bias — if EV confirms what they expect they “call” the election but if not, they wait. Then they start watching percent “precincts” reporting with the same sorts of bias. Doesn’t matter what percentage of expected votes are outstanding. If a city leaning the expected way reports and some double-digit percent of all else is in, they call it. If that city reports otherwise, they wait. But they want to be the first to call, and they don’t mind having to retract a week later.

    “Good”, accurate, defensible, well-understood processes widely agreed by all sides to be fair and increasingly less vulnerable to hacking, error, or fraud — has no constituency. Nobody in charge of such systems WANTS a good election system, or at least not more than they want one cheap and fast.

    It seems to me that IF we passed laws at state or higher level that forbid release of interim voting results or perhaps ANY results until, say, seven days after election day, we could get to “good”. Assume certain “transparent” processes inside that system reported during that week other stats. Those might include other related stats like number of precincts complete, number of ballot boxes tracked, even number of ballots (without regard to what votes are marked on the ballot) received and approved. Once everybody agreed that “N” ballots are valid, then begin the count of votes. 51% of N goes to A, 48% to B, and 1% to every other letter. “Good” is certainly within our ability to design.

    But somebody has to want such quality.

  11. It is not necessary for each and every reader here and elsewhere to go over these patterns in detail and accept them completely. The critical point is that there is a fraction of those who consider themselves “citizens” and not “subjects” who accept the postulates and in concert with other visible societal data over the last generation or so have decided that a) the election was not legitimate, b) that the government installed by that election is not legitimate, and c) that the orders of said government need not to be obeyed and indeed should by actively resisted by whatever means.

    One can argue about the size of the fraction of citizens that constitute that critical mass. It is much harder to argue that we are not rapidly approaching that critical mass, if we have not already passed it. Nor that we are not vulnerable to unexpected and/or unplanned incidents that can act as a trigger for kinetic events.

    Subotai Bahadur

  12. I think its obvious now, that computer voting creates more problems than it solves. Counting everything by hand is the best way. Done right it scales just fine.

  13. “Counting everything by hand is the best way.”

    You could machine read the hand-marked ballots. But if you have the ballots, marked by hand by the voters, it is easy to do a recount.

    Probably the best balance.

  14. as I pointed out, frm mark malloch brown’s presentation in 2015, (the lesson he took away from managing vargas llosas campaign* was make sure be the one to count the votes,) the smartmatic systems, have had varying degrees of errors in brazil, phillipines and venezuela

  15. The state of Georgia just reported “finding” a whole bunch of “ballots”. It’s apparently one memory card from a machine, and that card wasn’t turned in along with all the others. There was a known discrepancy because the “paper tape” from the machine showing numbers of ballots (or possibly, even allocated votes determined from those ballots) was transmitted. The split between Trump and Biden was in Trumps favor but not so much as in some other surprise finds, nor sufficient to overturn the current standings.

    It’s another example, to me, of the problems in the overall PROCESS. Losing a memory chip or card (a modern “Micro-SD” card is smaller than a thumbnail, so the things in a voting machine have to be designed to be BIGGER than electronically necessary, just to avoid loss or sleigh-of-hand shenanigans) is no different in principle from losing track of an old-fashioned 1.5 cubic foot big ballot box. Losing boxes happens all the time, sadly. Midland Texas this past January, for example. Flipped a local election result back and forth FOUR TIMES as the counts and recounts and new boxes and re-counted new boxes came in.

    The “mostly un-biased” and “approximately accurate” media keeps insisting that vote fraud is (a) a hoax or at least (b) not widespread, significant, or sufficient to account for the reported results. But to insist that errors sufficient to conceal fraud never occur is, to my way of thinking, mostly foolish and usually dishonest.

  16. Spelling correction:

    “Sleight-of-hand”. Prestidigitation. Pocketing the real deal and pushing in a counterfeit.

    The consequences of one crook in one urban polling center are easily enough to sway local elections. Any journalist idiot enough to declare otherwise never watches Penn and Teller.

  17. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning and he made a very good point. Why would Sidney Powell or Lin Wood, both of whom have serious reputations, risk that on a wild theory ? I’m looking forward to seeing what they have.

    If they have the goods on Biden and company, the next month is going to be interesting.

  18. Sidney Powell proved Michael Flynn was railroaded by a corrupt DOJ, but he’s still twisting in the wind at the mercy of malignant forces, so she’s not all powerful. If Barr et al think they can’t fully reveal the corruption in the DOJ because it would risk collapsing the system, why do you think they’ll be willing to reveal our elections have been compromised?

  19. If Barr et al think they can’t fully reveal the corruption in the DOJ because it would risk collapsing the system, why do you think they’ll be willing to reveal our elections have been compromised?

    Do you really need Barr to tell you our elections have been compromised?

    Or course you don’t.

  20. No, I do not. But is the goal to convince those of us who are paying attention, or to actually do something about it?

  21. I haven’t had time to look at the video so I’m basing my comments on what’s been said here.

    First, using a floating point format to count votes is just stupid. That said, even though floating point numbers only approximate almost all integers, the precision in even single precision would not make more than a fraction of a single vote error over any plausible number of ballots.

    Second, it is perfectly routine to perform all mathematical operations on integers, including division. Depending on the language, there may be certain special operators or procedures. It is perfectly easy to multiply an integer by .934 and get a meaningful answer and convert it back to an integer while observing the desired rounding. Some languages default to representing a number as a float unless it is explicitly typed. I can’t imagine using one for this. Visual Basic 6?

    I suppose I can imagine where each vote was to be scaled by some factor depending on the who cast it or who it was for. Then you would need to use a floating point value to accumulate the total since .934 x 1 rounds up to 1. If that’s what they are claiming, they’ll need more evidence. I don’t see why they wouldn’t just program it to ignore every third Trump vote instead. It would be pretty hard to hide if there are paper ballots. I agree that electronic only systems are insane.

    Using floats to count ballots is a sign of incompetence but not on its face a sign of some malign intent.

  22. One stat which hasn’t been widely disseminated yet is that Biden underperformed Hillary all across the country… except for EXACTLY four cities.

    Guess which cities those are?

    Yeah, the ones that pushed him over in exactly the states he needed.

    Proof of fraud?

    No. But it’s damned sure a “trout in the milk.”

    And if you don’t grasp the meaning of that, google it.

    }}} MCS: Using floats to count ballots is a sign of incompetence but not on its face a sign of some malign intent.

    True. But it’s yet another trout in the milk. And unfortunately, the bucket is getting so full of trout, that they’re splashing out all of the milk…

  23. }}} It would be pretty hard to hide if there are paper ballots. I agree that electronic only systems are insane.

    They specifically mention this in the video. Some setups take an electronic “screencap” of the ballot, which is kept instead of the physical paper.

    With appropriate checksums and encryption to prevent modification, this is not an entirely unacceptable notion.

    HOWEVER, one of the comments made in this video is that some venues (not necessarily Michigan) are not retaining those images for the length of time required by FEDERAL election laws.

    The more critical thing is, the data behavior in this video very much gets explained by the application of a “weighting algorithm” to the vote counts…. which certainly make sense for the votes kept in floats.

    Yes, there are much better ways of coding, but those are likely to be a lot easier to spot in the code, and don’t lend themselves to the degree of “tweaking” that this setup encourages, and nominally makes outright fraud a bit trickier to demonstrate. Even the results they show herein can only be utterly refuted by a specific examination of the actual ballots… lacking that, they are just another “trout in the milk”.

  24. “One stat which hasn’t been widely disseminated yet is that Biden underperformed Hillary all across the country… except for EXACTLY four cities”
    Is this actually true, though? My impression is that it’s more like the suburbs of those cities.

    The big brouhaha in Detroit last night seems to me to strongly suggest that the Dems know that the election can’t withstand even the slightest bit of scrutiny. Those who are interested in bringing the facts to light have to keep pushing.

  25. David Foster Says:
    November 17th, 2020 at 10:14 pm
    How does anyone know what data typing was used to count votes? Has the source code been released?

    The source code is proprietary and that needs to be broken into before it can be altered.

    This was very well planned and I am not sure it can be corrected.

  26. If it was my system, I might accept some sort of screen capture. From the outside it would provide zero assurance, it would be as easy to doctor the screen capture before it was recorded as anything else.

    When I went to vote, they were using a system I had never seen. After I checked in, they printed a long narrow ballot and fed it into the touch screen terminal that I was to use. The ballot was marked to show which district were appropriate since this was early voting at a location that had to accommodate the entire county. After going through the motions and confirming my votes, it regurgitated the ballot presumably filled out. I then took it and fed it through a scanner into the ballot box. It didn’t occur to me to look to see what it said or if it was readable until later. I assume it was readable and that I could have confirmed that it recorded my votes properly. I couldn’t have confirmed that the scanner was programed to record it properly. Presumably, during a recount, the ballot would have been re-scanned or manually scrutinized with appropriate audits in place.

    This was about the third different system in as many elections. I’m sure it accommodated early voting better than the old system of hand filled bubble ballots. Otherwise, there would have had to be a large collection of different ballots and ballot boxes to accommodate all of the precincts that would be voting at that location. A major source of error by itself.

    It would have provided some assurance to me if I’d had the wit to look at my ballot before I put it in the ballot box. The system that has been worked out over time for handling paper ballots with sealed and tracked ballot boxes, only opened in front of witnesses, etc is supposed to provide assurance as well, yet it seems to break down regularly in certain places.

    Scanners are verified by running a collection of known sample ballots through them before the election, and assuming the ballots are human readable that should work. Of course, as we saw in the VW diesel emissions test, it’s probably possible to program them to perform a test flawlessly and then do anything during actual use. There are a lot of practical reasons that this sort of fraud would be very hard to carry out in the real world and combined with the practice of hand verifying actual samples of ballots as a check during the election, probably keeps them honest.

    The easiest way to steal an election is the same as it’s always been. Either substitute votes by the ballot box full or “find” ballots and get them mixed in with legitimate ballots so there is no way to separate them. Neither will work if all the proper procedures are followed, which again seem to be a continuing problem in certain places.

    The voting machine companies are adamant in their refusal to share their source code. Even if they are willing to share under carefully controlled conditions, there’s no real way to be sure that the actual program image deployed is generated by that code. With encryption, there’s no way to even read the files if they are on a disk. That the people that seem to decide which systems to buy probably never learned to set the clock on their VCR’s doesn’t help.

  27. There are some election systems, such as the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system that the Australians use for their Senate, where you might need floating point arithmetic when you process the ballots. It’s a multi-member seat, mildly proportional system. One candidate passes a “quorum” and gets seated, and the vote spillover gets discounted accordingly and redistributed to the next candidate on each ballot, until all of the seats are filled.

    But it still seems odd to use floating point arithmetic in the machines that record the votes.

  28. Dr.Shiva is mistaken in his “analysis.” See https://youtu.be/aokNwKx7gM8 for a very good explanation.
    NOTE: What Dr.Shiva showed would occur for ANY data set — there is nothing special about either Trump’s or Biden’s votes. Dr. Shiva didn’t bother to apply his analysis to Biden’s votes or he would have immediately seen that the results looked the same as the result using Trump’s votes.

  29. Regarding Biden underperforming Hillary

    Dan McLaughlin at NRO published data that pretty conclusively proves it’s not true he only overperformed in 4 cities. He did better than Hillary in a number of cities across the country and actually *underperformed* her in Philadelphia.

  30. Why did 5 states all at the same time just stop counting? That’s never happened before. It wasn’t random. All 5 stopped. When they resumed, massive numbers of Biden votes appeared and the Trump lead vanished. One state maybe. 2 states strains credibility. 5 states is unbelievable, in the truest most literal sense of the word.

  31. Bob’s reference is correct; adding and subtracting percentages is a bad practice for precisely the reason explained in the video. There is no way to know the motivations of those who produced the “Dr. Shiva” video, so I can’t say whether they are fools or rogues, but you should always carefully check the assumptions behind what you’re told.

  32. Can someone explain why adding/subtracting has any special considerations for percentages when the percentages are representing actual vote counts. I.e., 43%==43 votes of 100, leaving 57%, 57 votes of 100. It is a zero-sum thingy.
    Call them ‘votes’ instead of ‘percent’ and the thing still flies to me.
    The ‘maths’ guy referenced on youtube seemed to have the D % opposite of Dr Shiva, decreasing % along the X axis.

  33. much like with the source code, that jeffrey carr and other analysts deciphered inside the dnc server, that showed it wasn’t russian, (actually ukrainian) and not sourced to the fsb

  34. There is literally zero reason why we need “voting machines” of any sort. And the fact that they are connected to the internet in any way is absolute insanity. The lack of transparency, and curiosity from the media, is telling.

  35. tomw,
    There are very good reasons:

    First, a vote represents a unitary entity, in our system, it either exists or doesn’t, there are no fractional votes. It is therefore proper to record it as an integer because it perfectly reflects reality. Integers may be mathematically manipulated without loss of precision if it’s done properly. Most importantly for votes, they may be added perfectly.

    Second, this is not the case for floating point numbers which in computers are represented as BINARY floating point numbers. They are ALWAYS approximations of decimal numbers and subject to many known causes of error. One of the most common of these errors is that while I can add 1 to an integer of any size and the result will be exactly one greater than the previous number or possibly an overflow (An error that should raise an flag.), adding 1 to a floating point number will result in one of three outcomes; the result will be slightly larger than 1+, slightly smaller than 1+ or not changed at all depending on what the exact number I was trying to add to was. Any extended calculation that depends on such an operation will suffer from what’s known as loss of precision.

    Finally, expressing a vote as a proportion is impossible until the total of all votes is known. Representing it as a proportion of the votes cast (a floating point number)to that point requires that it be reevaluated whenever a vote is added to the total. The first vote would represent 100%, after two votes, it might be 50%, after three, 33.3333333%, etc. This is the sort of extended calculation that makes loss of precision inevitable. The appropriate formula is (vote a) / (vote a + vote b + vote c + …) when the election is over.

    There is no scenario where carrying votes as a proportion (%) would make sense. Even places that use proportional voting schemes of various sorts don’t require anything other than a formula applied to the vote totals after the election ends.

    The choice is between blatant stupidity and plausible deniability. I know which one I’d believe.


  36. The Stand Up Math guys criticism of Dr. Shiva seemed fishy to me. Linked above by BobR.

    Looked like he was just proving what Shiva did by flipping over the data set by using Biden. In fact, that is what he did and his analysis is wrong.

    Shiva put out another video which explains what he is doing in more detail and directly answers the math guys critique. If you liked the first video this one goes into more depth, showing normal and abnormal data sets.


  37. As a former SW product manager for (too) many years, I struggle to conceive of valid use cases where anything other than integers are required for a voting system’s storage of vote counts. The current percentage of a given candidate’s share of the total vote is a calculation better performed in an output process (report/screen paint) and not stored as data. In fact, a good argument could be made that there is no valid use case for storing or processing negative numbers or any operation other than addition. Removal of votes from candidates to correct errors should result in the bad records being flagged in the database–not actually removed. As with a bank account, transactions should never be deleted–corrective records should be added for complete auditability of the transaction record.

    After viewing DVS training videos, it jumped out at me that whoever designed this system was not concerned with election integrity. Quite the opposite. They were more concerned with “flexibility.” Frankly, the more you know about SW, the more you realize that voting machines should never be used. Perhaps dumb optical scanners, but NEVER voting machines.

  38. After viewing DVS training videos, it jumped out at me that whoever designed this system was not concerned with election integrity. Quite the opposite. They were more concerned with “flexibility.” Frankly, the more you know about SW, the more you realize that voting machines should never be used. Perhaps dumb optical scanners, but NEVER voting machines.

    But if your goal is to create a system that will allow the people in charge to commit enough vote fraud to ensure they stay in charge, these videos are a great sales pitch, wink wink.

    I’m sure this was all fully explained to the customer- but not in writing.

  39. @Jesse: There is nothing “fishy” about Stand-up Maths analysis. It is a very straight forward (and correct) explanation of plotting correlated data. Watch the video again: starting at about 14 minutes
    The result Shiva claims demonstrates “fraud” does NOT “demonstrate” ANYTHING as the effect will occur for ANY correlated data set.
    There is nothing political about this: it is arithmetic. And relatively simple arithmetic at that.

    Plotting correlated data
    Plotting a straight line

    A little “virtue signaling”: I’ve voted in every election starting 1976 and while I have on occasion voted for the Republican, I’ve never voted for a Democrat (or any other variety of socialist). However, the 2020 election marks the first time I’ve voted for somebody a second time. I don’t remotely think Trump is ideal but he’s done a “decent” job and compared to the alternative he is downright outstanding.
    I think the 2020 presidential election is in the process of being “stolen” by “evil” people. However, pointing to “analysis” like that by Shiva is harmful because it is so easily demonstrated to not show what is claimed to be shown — which leads some people to also discount other analytical claims that are in fact correct.

    Later (after watching Shiva’s second video): Shiva did NOT address Stand-up Math’s analysis other than to hand wave and say it was “wrong” because of a lack of “pattern analysis” knowledge. At this point I’ve changed my opinion of Shiva: he is not merely mistaken, he is dishonest. He has been shown that what he claimed (election fraud) was not supported by the “evidence” he presented and he just claims “but you don’t understand” without showing anything that would support such a claim of “not understanding” or in anyway showing that the refutation of his “evidence” was incorrect. What is sad here is that the claim (election fraud) may in fact be correct — it just is NOT proven (or even supported) by the evidence Shiva has presented.

  40. @Bob R, Matt Parker’s video is misleading and I think intentionally so since Parker is clever.

    Near the beginning he shows two charts. One is a replication of Shiva’s result for Kent County. In the other, Parker has applied the same analysis but switching Republican and Trump’s votes for Democrat and Biden’s votes. They have the same overall shape of data with a strong trend downward from left to right.

    Parker intends careless watchers like you to conclude that, because of that similarity, any conclusion about the Trump’s vote applies symmetrically to Biden’s. So, for example, if the Trump chart indicates possible cheating against Trump, the Biden chart must indicate cheating against Biden. Obviously both can’t be true so neither is – that is, the analysis can’t be evidence of cheating against either candidate.

    Careful observers will see the similarity is only superficial as the Y axes of the two charts have quite different relations to the data. Biden’s vote difference decreases approximately from +20% down to 0% but Trump’s decreases from about 0% down to -20%.

    If Parker had put them side by side on the same Y axis, the game would have been obvious to all. Everyone would see that, far from the two charts telling opposite stories, they’re actually telling the same one – in precincts that are more Republican (supposedly inferred from straight party voting), Trump seems to underperform more.

    Parker’s trick is no different from that “public health expert” whose chart compared per capita covid deaths in counties with and without mask mandates. The chart seemed to show that, while masking counties initially had higher death rates, they’d caught up and even passed non-masking counties. It was a lie of course. The two curves had been drawn on different Y scales. When drawn on the same scale, the non-masking counties had always and were still doing much better.

  41. @Ed: Nice. You managed to call Matt a liar (that’s the 2-bit word for “clever” and “intentionally” misleading) and to label me “careless.” I think you are mistaken as to both of these attributions. As to whether you are being careless and/or intentionally misleading, I won’t hazard a guess.

    As to your claim “If Parker had put them side by side on the same Y axis, the game would have been obvious to all.” Look at Matt’s video at 7:42. Note that he explicitly addresses that issue and shows both charts at the same time. Note well: this does NOT prove there was fraud in the reporting and it also does NOT prove there was NO fraud. It might just be the case that those who did not vote “straight” ticket preferred Biden — whether the voter was a D or an R. It also could be the case that there was fraud but any such fraud could go either direction — it is not possible to tell based on these charts alone.

    As to your claim “Parker’s trick is no different from …”, there is no “trick” here. Again, look at Matt’s video at 14:01. At this point in the video he gives a very straight forward explanation of why plotting the data as Shiva proposes gives the results that are shown. Note that no numbers are used and that the result Shiva obtained will ALWAYS be obtained when the input data is strongly correlated and has NOTHING to do with voting.

    And “speaking” of correlation: Shiva starts with two assumptions: (1) The percentage of voters that selected “straight” ticket Republican exactly matches the percentage of voters that did not vote straight ticket but that did vote for Trump (i.e., the two are strongly correlated) and (2) that if the match is not exact then there was fraud. Maybe this is true in some places and not in others but I am not aware of any a priori reason to make either of those assumptions. As polarized as “we” have become (especially as relates to Trump), I would expect that there are places where neither is true and that in some places the “not straight ticket” vote would actually favor Trump, i.e., the line would go up and other places that would favor not Trump (Biden), i.e., the line would go down.

    To anyone who “wants” to say that Matt (or I) is (am) wrong about the plots _not_ being evidence of fraud: show specifically where the math is wrong. Show your work – hand waving won’t cut it. If you cannot do this then either we are correct or you lack the knowledge to make any assertions one way or the other.

  42. To me the biggest flashing red warning light, among many, is not just the lack of transparency but the firm opposition to looking into anything having to do with signature matching, as well as the shrugging of the shoulders at the way that voting machines work. The argument was made in 2016, even before the vote, that the machines couldn’t be hacked because they weren’t even on the internet, and now they appear to be transmitting votes all over the world for no obvious reason, and we’re supposed to think that makes even the tiniest bit of sense.
    Are the signature envelopes public record? Are they obtainable by media, and/or the Trump campaign? I have to say one big question in my mind is why they have been so chaotic and clearly unprepared, it makes them look really incompetent, and/or like there’s no real case, despite all indications that there is.

  43. To anyone who “wants” to say that Matt (or I) is (am) wrong about the plots _not_ being evidence of fraud: show specifically where the math is wrong. Show your work – hand waving won’t cut it. If you cannot do this then either we are correct or you lack the knowledge to make any assertions one way or the other.

    This is called “sealioning,” in which people are commanded to complete various homework assignments or otherwise they’ve lost the argument by default.

    I watched the first video, which was enough. I’ll say it again- it doesn’t seem reasonable to me that Trump would lose votes in the manner noted by Shiva without some sort of assist from something.

    I’m mildly amazed at how many people I don’t recognize who have suddenly appeared at the sites I read, all exclaiming how thoroughly wrong it is to mention fraud in the context of this election. In this case, we have a rather specific assertion by this Shiva person, noted by Ginny, which I found mildly interesting- and presto here comes someone who knows all about why it was all a lieeeeee!!!!

    Now since there is a veritable mountain of evidence that this election has been stolen, by what had to have been a rather large conspiracy including both the demonrats and the gopes, I presume such a conspiracy would also understand the need to push back against the obviousness of the fraud. Hence, all the new folks.

    It won’t help, and long term, I don’t think it will even matter. The present American regime is not sustainable, for many reasons.

    And it just created another- massive and obvious vote fraud, too obvious to be forgotten.

  44. “I believe there was fraud in this election.”
    “Nah, there was no fraud.”
    “OK, let’s look into it, let’s check the signatures on absentee ballots.”
    “Nah, there was no fraud.”
    “And let’s compare votes with the rolls.”
    “Nah, there was no fraud.”
    “And let’s look into exactly how the voting machines work.”
    “Nah, there was no fraud.”

    Yeah, sorry guys, that’s not gonna work. At some point you gotta say, “OK, let’s do that, if it will make everyone feel better about the legitimacy of this and any other election.” The blanket refusal to do that is pretty compelling evidence that they know the election was dirty as heck.

Comments are closed.