I think you've re-made my point for me

I may have missed that analysis, can you post?

@DrSammyD did the analysis and has posted it twice

@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.

> @meglide https://bitcadia.github.io/DownBallot/index.html

works for me

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.

https://youtu.be/TTw4aErwego

I think what may be somewhat unique to MI is that they allow you to vote straight party by checking just one box (or filling in just one oval) whereas this is option is not available in most other states

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.

yes precisely ... and I took issue with Dr. Shiva's assertion that the particular pattern he was seeing had to be the result of fraud speculating that it was a computer algorithm, whereas I claim just some simple assumptions about voter patterns in that county could produce that same pattern ... as why that voter pattern should exist and what motivates humans to vote that way I don't know, my interest was that the mathematics allow for it and so you're now in the realm of trying to explain human behavior

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

yeah well not probable is NOT the same as not possible, just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it didn't happen and to go to court and prove something you're going to need something more tangible

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

dead people voting is not possible, live people voting peculiarly ... well maybe in this day and age it is to be expected

yes audit territory is a key ... GA is going to recount all the ballots by hand, if the results are significantly different than the computer counted results then that might point to some monkey business with the computer ... note I'm assuming you have both parties involved in the counting so as to counter-balance people's biases

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"

lol

yeah somewhere along the way investigative journalism died out

I guess it didn't sell well ... probably easier to produce partisan opinion pieces that it is to really dig for the truth

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

yeah I said it for a reason

@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 believe there are two juries, the American people especially the biden supporters and the courts /legislators.

If a legal case is won but the American people don't understand or buy in there will continue to be division.

So if some portions paint a picture or open the door to doubt that the election was fraud free, I believe it's as important as a strong, factual, evidence based case in this instance

The converse of that is also something to consider. Js.

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.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/767524687634759711/776440268119343124/image0.jpg

> 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
> ...
@stevesirag I would point out that you don't have to prove criminal charges to get ballots throw-out or recounted or etc. Regardless of intent of those involved if certain rules weren't followed or certain standards weren't adhered to then there is the potential for a court to address it ... that being said a court is going to be very reluctant to address it if there is no potential for a change in the overall result. For example if you lost by 10k votes and you're only disputing 1k votes then the court may acknowledge a problem but not address the problem because those 1k votes can't change the outcome ... if however you lost by only 100 votes then those 1k disputed votes can change the outcome and the court would most likely address the issue

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.

yes, we assume the election is fair unless proven otherwise ... and maybe the good that can come from this election is a reevaluation of that assumption ... we've known forever that every election contains some small instances of fraud or irregularities (intention or not) but we rarely institute election reform to correct for these

I've got a question that maybe someone can help me understand. With PA, I can see how SCOTUS can change the vote results of saying that PA SC was not able to change the laws, only the legislature can, and could potentially invalidate all of the ballots after Nov 3. However, lets say that Michigan and Wisconsin it is determined that there was some sort of fraud, such as ballots being requested/received/counted for people that are deceased. What could SCOTUS do in that aspect? I can see that they would rule that it's illegal to do that and that those ballots are not valid, but would those ballots be segregated enough that they would be able to be identified and removed from the totals? If not, how would that be handled?

my understanding is that state courts would handle the later, I'm assuming most all states have laws/rules that say dead folks can't vote ... how the courts would handle the redress would be dependent on the circumstances

Even if it was the state/lower courts that would handle that, I guess I'm also trying to understand how that might happen. Especially if those ballots are not able to be identified other than there are xxxxxx number of ballots that are invalid. There is no way to know for sure what the results of those ballots would be other than maybe a bit of statistics of xx% went to trump and xx% went to biden of ballots of the same time, so lets remove that number from the total count. My concern is wouldn't that potentially invalidate REAL votes by going by statistics only.

https://youtu.be/6L_U-LqoTdE

They discussing remedies if enough fraud is proven

Uncivil Law is talking and explains Barnes' idea

basically 1. state legislatures are allowed to dictate what the electors should vote, even overriding the popular vote, and this is something they cannot abrogate (by ruling of the SC previously), which means that this is still currently an option (there is no state law that can stop this)

2. the federal house can also object to states' electoral votes

@DisenchantedTruth ^