Message from @Dan_Sundin
Discord ID: 780968599190765569
If this isn't proof idk what is
also loved the recent live stream
GCD for sure
gah I just had an epiphany
a much better visualization aye
imagine a graph (in the network sense)
every node is a report
every node has a value (one of {since last report, total } X {ratio of trump/total, ratio of trump/biden}
then you draw an edge between all nodes of the same value?
and you can place the nodes over time
left to right
sure, it will have 250k nodes though
How do you visualize that two reports are different precincts,
You better retrieve that Sharpie-Gate... the gate will be opened and InkPen-Gate will be added .
so are these civil suites being filed if so isnt the burden of proof 51%
more likely than not
that was pretty funny
Not how Election Law is written. Refer to the different state election statutes.
you can place the node's laid out with the Y axis being time, and the X axis being precinct
0 registered voters in Wayne county are for absentee vote counting centers instead of the precinct where the voter actually lived. There is nothing odd about this.
@DrSammyD visualized or not, you'd expect the "virtual precinct" to basically have long connected edges
I can do this in graphviz
oh I'll watch that while coding this giant graphviz
ha his intro is gold
let me quote him
```
What this project was trying to do: was to establish a concrete finding.
This is different than I think what a lot of the other, voices, on this issue have been raising, which are, what I would consider somewhat speculative, or something that's purely analytical, and, I've seen a lot of convincing videos showing charts, and scatterplots, and maps, and making the case for, software hacking, server overseas, influencing the outcome and vote switching on machines.
And I am not disagreeing. I am not saying any of that stuff is incorrect. But I think there is a problem, sometimes, that, where, if you personally do not have expertise in that area, and somebody who is a _purported_ expert _explains_ to you what has taken place. Something nefarious. Something complicated. Even involving complex mathematical formula. Or some code in some software somewhere. They can be very convincing. And if you don't have the strong background in that area, that you can question it, you can believe them, but you are believing them solely on the basis of trust. That also means that someone else who you also trust can make a contrary convincing argument.
```
```
And. I don't want to be a in position where I'm taking on faith, somebody that I may not know that well, or somebody is making a case where I can't push back, I don't have enough understanding of the technicalities to make an argument or to really understand or to appreciate it. Because when I am looking at [a mathematician] making an analysis or a software engineering guy making an argument about voting machines, I just have to trust them. I don't want anyone to have to do that with any of my findings. Because everything we are putting together here at VIP (Voter Integrity Project?), should be very accessible. Completely understandable. And if you were to sit here next to me, and [I was to] open up the raw call data, [it would be very obvious what is going on] [and you wouldn't need a degree] to understand the findings. This also makes it very easy to reproduce ...
```
this is how I felt about a lot of the analyses
Benford's law was approachable to me
Shiva was not
the Star Craft Dominion Theory was not (but I had help)