> Also I think his recommendations about more transparency and greater access to data and the ability to audit are all good things
@meglide

If 100% of Michigan counties matched this trend, you might be onto something--that the more Republican a county was, the more the voters disfavored Trump. However, if this pattern exists in only a few counties, then we are looking at a serious problem.

I have not seen a further analysis of more Michigan counties, but if you compare Oakland and Wayne counties, which are neighboring counties, the difference in the distribution is absolutely stark. These were both Democrat counties. Is there something about the county line that would make Republicans less likely to support Trump? I don't think so. It seems clear that some manipulation was happening in Oakland county that wasn't happening in Wayne.

@meglide for an individual person or county, that might be true. As datasets get larger, however, they conform to the same overall 'shapes' if they are not being manipulated.

I don't think this proves fraud. It does prove that we need to dig into the details, double-check and make sure there was no manipulation.

In particular, I'd like to see a county-by-county analysis of every county in Michigan, and compare them all, and then compare systems in use between counties that conform to a natural distribution to the ones that don't.

I may have missed that analysis, can you post?

@meglide I did see a link but it's a 404

@meglide Also, it appeared from comments that this was a county count, not a precinct count as Dr. Shiva was doing. It's critical to the analysis that precinct-level data is used.

OK, that one works... again I see no precinct level data. Also the quirk that is enabling this analysis is unique to Michigan or at least isn't shared by every state.

I agree, which is why this analysis is critical. If there's no manipulation, further analysis will show that. Statistics isn't useful for proving anything, it useful in showing you where to look for evidence.

Sure, just keep digging into the data until it's mathematically not probable

absolutely, again it's not proof, but it's where we need to examine the software, personnel, individual ballots. Audit territory

absolutely. transparency is key to defending our liberty. as WP used to say "Democracy dies in darkness." Then they said "nothing to see here folks"

Just fyi, on the "Dead people voting" front: If you've not taken the "Fleccas challenge", check this out. It's Fleccas' list of dead Michigan voters (not debunked so far as I know, as the other list of 14k was), combined with a handy randomizer.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VtMrWYrIBiZ99nPndWbuX196zAE_FHVBLrVKBK7mtoA

@meglide a tie-in to another news story I'd love to see analysis on: the Antrim county 'glitch' that was caught by a perceptive official and votes were reversed by 30% in Trump's direction based on a hand-count. A follow-up article described this 'glitch' as being unlikely to occur elsewhere, but otherwise was not specified.

so, if we run this same analysis on Antrim county before and after the 'glitch' was reversed, will we find the aberration we're talking about?

I also would say there's 2 different types of things that need to be proven in this election:

* Fraud: any specific cases of fraud must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt with criminal charges against individuals
* Free and fair election: any election must prove to the body politic that it was a free and fair one; this cannot be assumed contra the ideas of the corporate media establishment. How does a Free and Fair Election prove itself? by following the law, maintaining transparency standards and bringing to light any known or suspected cases of fraud for due investigation

The first 'proof' is the one the media keep yammering about. OK, so we haven't proven fraud yet. But by 86'ing standards like signature verification, by indulging chicanery like mysterious and unwatched vote counting in the middle of the night and poll watcher ejections, this election has not proven itself valid to the body politic. If you're a rational Dem, you're crossing your fingers and hoping the media let you off on this one, as this is third world stuff.

And I know 3rd world stuff, having spent 8 years living in a 3rd world dictatorship.

I agree, there are technical matters on which courts can decide somewhere between the 2 proofs. My point is to say there's a philosophical proof of fair election that media assume and ignore.

He better have proof. Put up or shut up on something like that.

He better have proof. Put up or shut up on something like that.

> He doesn't need proof. Merely tweeting it hit exactly where he intended as the gospel. Congrats.
@Zuluzeit

But if that's proven false, every other effort to increase election security is also damaged

It all becomes hoax territory

@DrSammyD Is there a way to output the slope functions to csv?

Also, I'm not clear on what exactly the data mean... for instance OK, which voted 63% for Trump, the slope starts below the zero mark.

@DrSammyD so a downslope indicates that the more heavily partisan a county is, the more likely it is to vote a split ticket?

seems counterintuitive

Thanks, any chance of state column?

By abbreviation?

I'm seeing other issues with the slope equations, such as " Equation = y = -7.05x + 232.32" for Trump GA in the csv, but "-.16x + 2.62" in graphic.

> @Winter personally I think they should also but that's not what I've been told the courts do ... if there is evidence of a crime they may certainly prosecute that person but remedies for procedural mistakes may not happen ... that said, see my post, PA court ruled deadline extension lacked authority and those ballots may not be counted.
@meglide

The only time anyone cares about election integrity is the losing side every 4 years. I don't think it's ever been this blatant, and whoever wins, we have to keep investigating to get this fixed.

> Maybe this was covered here already or in one of the videos (link if there is one), but do you think Trump has a solid case under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
@DeathRhodes666

If I understand it correctly I think he does, as he's not saying that all mail-in ballots fail equal protection, but by denying any form of identification verification, PA's implementation of mail-in in this election breached those rights. Stack on top the fact it was counter PA law and that Trump team brought suit before the execution of said procedure predicting exactly this problem.

But it's a layman's opinion.

Anyone know a libertarian gofundme?

@leftingfighter33 when even Linsey Graham is fired up, you know something is real here

> oh and I guess this is why I can't find the source for his tweet: https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/oan-forced-to-delete-fake-story-about-voter-fraud-after-trump-promotes-the-conspiracy-theory/
@meglide

Maybe someone trying to poison the well?

Eyewitness on poll watcher harassment. Whether or not Biden won legitimately or not, this is not acceptable and seriously undermines confidence in elections. This happened, folks. This is not normal.

https://youtu.be/dVqUIgzrkDk

> Red means the # of people who didn't vote straight party ticket voted for Trump minus the people who didn't vot straight party ticket who voted for biden
@DrSammyD Does 'split ticket' include the ballots that were blank downballot?

> @stevesirag that's a good question that I've been wondering myself and whether there's a legitimate reason for it, seems possible that either party could have recruited folks to just to vote top of the ticket, voting down ballot can be more of a hassle, in addition to the candidates and there are also many bond issues, and etc. So there could have been a push to just go in and vote top of the ticket because we gotta support or oppose one candidate or another
@meglide

Another explanation: dems had a tight window of time to generate thousands of naked ballots and couldn't be bothered to fill in all ovals. There are reports of cardboard boxes of ballots being delivered during an official hiatus in the counting, along with reports that the counting actually continued in secret, with the Biden tally jumping between the hiatus and the resumption of official counting. Not that we have the hard proof of this...

Proof is hard when you remove all guardrails on the election. That by itself puts the election in 3rd world banana republic territory

Trump's tweet was based on a crap story that has been deleted.

The USPS guy did not recant. And yes there is a lisk of 10k confirmed dead voters.

This may not be proof, but it sure is evidence...

https://thespectator.info/2020/11/13/i-know-in-venezuela-elections-are-like-this-it-was-stolen/

Poll workers wouldn't have to be fully in on it. They'd be told something like "new ballots found, count these". That combined with a incurious media and general disfavor to the President is enough to maintain silence.

And there are thousands of people reporting similar things, and hundreds of sworn statements. Again not proof yet, but evidence.

General disfavor among the volunteers at these big city counting centers. It's notable that the reports came from these places in which the mysterious tranches appeared. IE there wasn't poll watcher harassment, mysterious hiatuses in counting, etc in St Louis.

The larger point is that when you open holes in your election security large enough to drive a truck through you know a truck is coming. Far from undermining democracy, examining and discussing these issues builds our understanding of what a secure election looks like. I spent time in emerging democracies, and this work is critical.

Yet

We do have evidence

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-columns/victor-joecks/victor-joecks-clark-county-election-officials-accepted-my-signature-on-8-ballot-envelopes-2182390/

IMO in this entire discussion we need to reverse the standard of proof. Any election needs to prove it was a valid measure of the voter's will. All the election laws and standards are designed to supply the means of proving that. Thinks like registration, voter id, ballot integrity, vote anonymity, observation and challenge processes, document retention. If all these are followed, it provides the required standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. When these standards are eroded, obstructed or applied unevenly, reasonable doubt in the results is introduced.

This is the philosophical basis of election validity; not sure how it stacks up legally--but the "nothing to see here" crowd deliberately ignore this reality.

After all, isn't an election certification also a government decision, just as a court finding or executive action? Shouldn't it be based on due process and a standard of proof that sides with the people against the government?

So you're all good with zero signature verification combined with unlimited ballot harvesting and thousands of extra ballots floating around the populace? Still nothing to see? Even if no more specific election fraud is ever proven, you have to concede that election design is hopelessly flawed. The trendline of such a configuration can only benefit those already in power.

I'm speaking philosophically. This has no legal impact. The question is, was this a good election? Is this how we should do this? What do we want to change for next time? That's the role of philosophy

Forgive me @RobertGrulerEsq for posting alternate lawyers on your Discord, but this is relevant to a discussion point from yesterday. It seems Robert Barnes agrees *somewhat* with me on how an election can and needs to prove itself valid:

"Rather than impose on those who want the right rules to be applied that you have to prove fraud first, that's never been the standard. If there was no fraud, then you shouldn't be scared of doing the simple recanvassing that the rules are designed to do"
https://youtu.be/JPNhiTExv1Q?t=6100

Dr Shiva answers: who wants popcorn?

https://youtu.be/R8xb6qJKJqU

Best reality tv in years

I agree to a certain extent, but if you cheat enough you can avoid recounts...?

Either way I'm fascinated at the possibility that with big data analytics we may be able to come up with an election baseline that may be able to highlight problems that can be examined in greater detail

I'm all for recounts

Are they though? In some locations the ballot images are counted then deleted

You'd think. I'd like to see evidence those laws are being followed to the letter. A lot of laws were waived this year

Yep...

Wayne County board of canvassers just refused to certify their own vote totals

That's Detroit folks

They've seen enough voting irregularities in their own house they won't certify

Doesn't prove fraud, but it does prove the measures to prevent fraud failed

At first they refused to certify, then they reversed

Looks like they're working late tonight

So... Wayne County canvassers concerned about integrity were harassed by their compatriots to certify the vote on the grounds that the poll books never match... Seems reasonable

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/17/wayne-county-michigan-reverses-course-certifies-el/

I believe a low level of fraud has always been endemic to the system, but this year it has been cranked up to 11 with the Trump=Hitler rhetoric and the moratoria on standard fraud checks such as signature matching. Interested in the larger conspiracy claims as well, but so far skeptical, still to be proven.

The more philosophical question: how much fraud + failed checks and balances has to be proven before we doubt we know who won?

The problem with moratoria on fraud detection/prevention laws is that the line for that question is lowered considerably. IE: if we have no signature matching, and we uncover a few dozen examples of vote stuffing, we can be confident there is more, possibly a lot more. If there is assiduous signature matching, we can be confident that most fraud was caught.

With the Detroit poll book thing, I heard a report that 70% of the poll books don't add up. Is that normal?? And if so, what's the point of poll books or canvassing boards if we just say that looks ok to me?

With the mail-in ballot thing, we have an explosion in the rate of voting by mail, combined with a precipitous drop in the rate of acceptance failure. Both should track upwards in the normal case.

> Although when you compare the two relevant to this election, the left-leaning groups are currently the ones to be more wary of. I mean, they more-or-less harassed vote officials in Wayne County to certify results. Although making kidnap plots against sitting elected representatives (e.g. Gov. Whitmer) is also something to worry about
@DeathRhodes666 There's no evidence these guys were influenced by 'the right'... from all indications they were anarchists, antifa types

We all make a big mistake when thinking everything is binary. Elections are binary unfortunately. Everything else comes from all directions. Just because they wanted to hurt Witmer doesn't mean they were Republicans, right-wing or Trumpistas

> Would we then have called him 'antifa', as used in the current vernacular? Because as far far as I can tell, 'antifa' is interchangeable with 'communist' and encompasses whatever properties the right wing outrage du jour requires of it.
@Zuluzeit The guy I saw video of looked more Antifa, maybe there's a lot of mixed motivations out there, and the more extreme you get, the more alike you act whatever your motivations. In my opinion, the left shouldn't be blamed for Antifa and the right shouldn't be blamed for right-wing extremists *unless* they refuse to call them out/investigate/prosecute them. IE: the Michigan boneheads, whoever they are, were interdicted and are being prosecuted by the FBI before they did anything dangerous. What alarms me about Antifa is governors, mayors and prosecutors refusing to acknowledge their organizations, their criminal actions, etc and letting them off without charges even when police arrest them for violence. That's a collaborative relationship we can't allow to continue. The left *has* to oppose Antifa or they are Antifa.

> @stevesirag I agree on the whole but am not sure about the part with not opposing something makes you that thing. If that were the case, I know a person who has some splaining to do. Stand back, stand by on that one.
@Zuluzeit

I'm no proposing a general rule that you are what you don't oppose. In the case of Antifa, however, the summer-long campaign of nightly political violence carefully ignored by dems in media, Congress, governors and mayors office is telling. Local police so fed up they stopped obeying orders to go and help. Astonishing complicity in violence by omission of their duty. As for your Trump remark, he has vocally opposed white supremacy over 80 times on record, it's an idiotic claim media keep trotting out.

If the media spends the next four years demanding Biden denounce pedophilia I'll say they're treating both sides equally

I don't think he's a pedophile. The point is that Trump is also not a white supremacist. It's just the attack vector dems chose early on to keep race forefront in politics.

I'm not looking for it but I am demanding it. We're not that stupid, and each of us should abandon ad hominem and straw man arguments and return to rational discource.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/mathematics-prof-says-sworn-statement-many-56000-gop-ballots-pa-may-be

@james j
1. I think it's the 'losing' side's obligation to bring any challenges they see as valid to the table, this time it's us.
2. Democrats and Green party did bring challenges to the table in 2016, recounts were conducted, nothing came of them.
3. Dems then proceeded to prosecute a totally bogus narrative of a stolen election in collusion with Putin for 2 more years, citing almost zero evidence, and what evidence was cited came from sketchy Dem oppo research. I don't se us doing that to Biden, although the corruption allegations brought by Bubolinski and Hunter's hard drive should be investigated thoroughly.

Is this evidence?
https://youtu.be/wB7jhXvFl0k