Message from @meglide
Discord ID: 776311709471604746
If all of the counties have this syphon, then every dot just looks like it was shifted down equally.
Seriously, Michigan non-down ballot voters are suppressed by a minimum of 50% next to MN, IL, and WI https://bitcadia.github.io/DownBallot/Outputs/CountyDownBallotDiffsByStraightMI.html
Nessel is targeting conservative websites I hear
Suppression sounds boilerplate
well MI allows for voting straight party by filling in just one box, what about the other states?
None, but we're only comparing people who didn't use that
I have no idea, Trump really almost earned my first ever vote this year. /Regrets wouldnt have affected my state but still..I honest to god wanna see Amy Barret with ted cruz vp. Thats what im feelin rn. If shes as impartial as she comes off while still understanding being a human I like her alot.
Dr. Shiva talked about it in his video on just MI precincts so now I'm wondering how he broke the data out
They found the precinct data. probably from michigan
no, I mean what exactly was he plotting
Ask him ? https://vashiva.com/contact/
I doubt you'll see a response but I feel like anyone trying to prove or disprove something should be willing to share applicable data to make the results irrefutable.
He plotted exact numbers of ballots checked as Party Ticket, and exact numbers of non-party ticket per precinct. He then plotted percentage of party ticket republican per precinct on the x axis, and percentage of individual votes for trump on the y axis.
yeah that's what I thought and tried to model ... point is if just a small percentage of Dems broke with straight party vote and voted for Trump you can get something like what he plotted
It's not that the some percentage broke. It's that the percentage that broke increased with how republican the precinct was. But also that it didn't start increasing until the precinct was 25% Republican
yeah I'm not buying his analysis and with a simple model and spreadsheet I can get a curve that does something like what the data shows
x-axis is percentage Republican so to the left is heavy Democrat, if just a small percentage of Democrats break with party and vote Trump then on the left of the graph you get more Trump votes than downline Republican ... then if a fraction of Republican vote party downline but NOT Trump as you move right towards heavier Republican precincts you less Trump votes than downline Republican ... adjust the relative percentages and you can put the break over point anywhere you want
I'm looking at a similar pattern for the right side of his graph in GA
They are comparing the fraction, not the total amount
So it's an increasing fraction of total voters yes?
not sure what you're asking but the point is that the horizontal axis is percent Republican, so as you move left there are more Democrats voting and less Democrats voting as you move right ... what he observed was a downward trend of Trump votes divided by Republican downline votes AND what he said was if say Romney's analysis is correct that some Republicans voted party downline but NOT for Trump that you would have a flat curve under the 1.0 ratio line but what Dr. Shiva failed to account for is that even if a small percentage of Democrats break from straight party and vote Trump then you can get a curve or trend line similar to what he observed
When you say % republican, do you mean % voted party ticket republican, or % registered republicans?
Finally, I'm not buying he claim that the shape of the trend line is evidence of election fraud ... he claims it's evidence of a computer algorithm but I claim it could be just evidence of voter preferences within a particular county
regarding % republican I assume "voted" because I believe that's all the data he had (I assume the ballot data is secret and thus you won't know if the vote cast was registered Republican or not)
Yeah, agreed
okay then back to the court cases, I found this video useful to summarize the court cases currently in play https://youtu.be/h6pI3-nWmSQ
Still the down ballot comparisons are relevant cross states
to what end? to detect possible voter fraud? I don't think so
> 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.
> 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.
why? there are any number things which might explain this other than voter fraud'
for example, suppose there is a Republican candidate that was liked by voters in the county but didn't get along with Trump and/or some of Trump positions ... if John McCain was still alive you could see folks in AZ voting for him but not for Trump
another example might be that some business in that county had to lay workers off due to say the tariffs that Trump placed on China, again the Republicans might like their local candidates and not like Trump
Now I don't know anything about these counties because I don't live anywhere near MI and never have ... BUT I don't consider this particular voting pattern evidence of fraud and I don't think a court would either ... Dr. Shiva seemed to suggest you could never get this pattern and was able to simulate this by making a couple simple assumptions about human behavior in the county, so mathematically it is certainly possible
@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.
yes and a county-to-county comparison showed NO such pattern
I think you've re-made my point for me
I may have missed that analysis, can you post?