Message from @duckherder
Discord ID: 793967084760989726
Organizations don't let people look on the inside without being forced even if they're not doing anything.
The basis for what they claim is false. They asserted that the data feed from Edison Research NEP to NYT showed an accurate, timestamped representation of the votes as they are tabulated. It does not. In fact, the method for Edison gathering election night results is fairly manual. You can see the process that is used here: http://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Web-Entry-Team-Handout-2020.pdf
So, if you read that document, you begin to see that the data feed to the NYT is not intended to be 100% accurate. They are constantly having to consolidate and correct manually entered data throughout the night. So, the interface between NEP and NYT is trying to make these corrections without highlighting the mistakes.
Then, they make a blanket assertion about how rare it is for a batch of votes to be more than 75% for a particular candidate, but do absolutely nothing to account for the unique dynamic of this particular election - the fact that for 6 months before the election, Trump urged his supporters to vote in person and not via mail.
So, a good data scientist would have made an effort to normalize the data across the same election. It would only be statistically relevant if it was anomalous in this context of this election. Meaning, that they should have compared the GA mail-in results to (a) the percentages of the in-person voting in GA; (b) the percentages of mail-in voting in other traditionally red states; and (c) the percentages of in-person voting in red states.
Also, they should analyze the patterns in places like FL and TX where mail-in ballots were counted first and showed massive leads for Biden until the in-person votes were counted and his lead "miraculously" disappeared.
It all comes down to integrity and what was presented today was lacking in that area.
Let's see just take a bunch of ballots from dirty rolls and submit them after removing observers. Easy
Yes... it's just this easy.
Lmao
The litigation was the hard part. Only a few people have to be compromised
It's a lot easier to argue that they violated their own state laws. This is totally an unequivocally true.
> The litigation was the hard part. Only a few people have to be compromised
@duckherder Like who, judges?
Also last I remember, it was a republican position to be in favor of state's rights in the federalist system.
Explanations like that are why people rely on experts in nutshell conclusions.
I meant besides the litigation part. Just need someone who can"send" ballots to voters left on the roll
Too many words?
> Also last I remember, it was a republican position to be in favor of state's rights in the federalist system.
@Maw True but that should be everyone's position. It's what we do.
Yes. Federalism means control to state legislatures not machines
Technical for non-technical people not so much. ...people just don't have the audacity to think they can understand things...
Federalism means states can control their own elections, too.
@Maw, you just advanced to level 39!
Including their own voting systems.
@duckherder, you just advanced to level 5!
Look at the audience...
And they did. PA is a single example, this has nothing to do with the systems of voting.
If you believe the Kraken experts my God you'll believe anything.... But then that's just me I don't trust anything.@Zuluzeit
It has to do with the court not following the separation of powers for mail-in deadlines. Not the systems of voting.
PA is THE example we were talking about.court ordered no signature checks. Court ordered extended deadline. Neither was in the original legislation.
Violation of electors clause
@TaLoN132 complete analysis isn't in a sound bite. And that's what people want little short tropes.
The thing about mail-in votes is that we know where the ballots were sent. If there are ballots in question, a decent private investigator should be able to track down who received them. If only someone with a vested interest had a sizable amount of money in order to pay for private investigators to track down these fraudsters to prove without a doubt that fraud occurred...
If only any of these suits made it to the discovery phase
That brings me back to the idea of this isn't to prove election fraud...
Then take it up with PA. You can't say that their votes don't matter though, that isn't how this system works.
I guess it's also hard to prove something that doesn't appear to exist.@TaLoN132
Criminal and private investigations do not require any court authorizations. In fact, they are usually done BEFORE filing suit.
You don't punish the constituents for an issue of the state.
3 buckets of grievances:
State election laws
Manipulatable software
Bogus ballots
Putting all of them in an interchangeable pile and calling the pile itself irrefutable is not going to help.
Bingo!
It's much harder to disprove the existence of something.
That can't be what they're trying to do with this....