This thread aged well
OP's lucky his ignorance only cost him a useless road trip to see some Republican instead of the years in jail some people got following their beliefs.
Possible Election Fraud in Progress
- Thread starter BeautifulStranger
- Start date
OP's lucky his ignorance only cost him a useless road trip to see some Republican instead of the years in jail some people got following their beliefs.
Why The Wall Street Journal Is Wrong About The 2020 Election
https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/28/why-the-wall-street-journal-is-wrong-about-the-2020-election/
The WSJ then opines “the stolen-election theory doesn’t hold up [according to the WILL Report]. President Biden won Wisconsin by 20,682 votes, and mass fraud would likely have resulted in some discernible anomaly.” But this is a perfect example of the “red herring” fallacy. The problem is not “mass voter fraud,” but a very “discernible anomaly” involving a highly coordinated and privately funded “shadow campaign” for Biden that took place within the formal structure of the election system--
By injecting more than $419 million of Mark Zuckerberg’s money, laundered through the CTCL and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), the professional left presided over a targeted, historically unprecedented takeover of government election offices by demonstrably ideological activists and nonprofit organizations in key areas of these swing states. Nothing like this has happened in at least the last 150 years of American elections.--
---excess Biden votes (over Hillary Clinton in 2016) in Brown, Dane, and Milwaukee counties alone were more than 83,000, only about 13,000 of which (at most) can be attributed to population growth or general statewide increases in voter turnout. Are we expected to believe that the effect of CTCL’s $4.79 million spending on Biden’s vote totals in Madison and Milwaukee was “41 votes on average (which would amount to 82 votes in total),” when between Dane (Madison) and Milwaukee counties Biden beat Trump by 364,372 votes? Obviously not.
These two counties alone were responsible for more than 15 times Biden’s margin of victory in Wisconsin, which means Trump won the vote in non-CTCL funded counties by well more than 300,000 votes.
Without CTCL involvement in Wisconsin in 2020, Wisconsin would be a solidly red state. We estimate that CTCL’s investment in seven Wisconsin counties resulted in 65,222 votes for Biden that would not have occurred in CTCL’s absence. That’s more than three times as big as the final 20,800-vote margin between Biden and Trump in 2002. That CTCL-funded election interference so obviously flipped Wisconsin for Biden in 2020 is not merely “troubling,” as WILL alleges. It is outrageous.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/28/why-the-wall-street-journal-is-wrong-about-the-2020-election/
The WSJ then opines “the stolen-election theory doesn’t hold up [according to the WILL Report]. President Biden won Wisconsin by 20,682 votes, and mass fraud would likely have resulted in some discernible anomaly.” But this is a perfect example of the “red herring” fallacy. The problem is not “mass voter fraud,” but a very “discernible anomaly” involving a highly coordinated and privately funded “shadow campaign” for Biden that took place within the formal structure of the election system--
By injecting more than $419 million of Mark Zuckerberg’s money, laundered through the CTCL and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), the professional left presided over a targeted, historically unprecedented takeover of government election offices by demonstrably ideological activists and nonprofit organizations in key areas of these swing states. Nothing like this has happened in at least the last 150 years of American elections.--
---excess Biden votes (over Hillary Clinton in 2016) in Brown, Dane, and Milwaukee counties alone were more than 83,000, only about 13,000 of which (at most) can be attributed to population growth or general statewide increases in voter turnout. Are we expected to believe that the effect of CTCL’s $4.79 million spending on Biden’s vote totals in Madison and Milwaukee was “41 votes on average (which would amount to 82 votes in total),” when between Dane (Madison) and Milwaukee counties Biden beat Trump by 364,372 votes? Obviously not.
These two counties alone were responsible for more than 15 times Biden’s margin of victory in Wisconsin, which means Trump won the vote in non-CTCL funded counties by well more than 300,000 votes.
Without CTCL involvement in Wisconsin in 2020, Wisconsin would be a solidly red state. We estimate that CTCL’s investment in seven Wisconsin counties resulted in 65,222 votes for Biden that would not have occurred in CTCL’s absence. That’s more than three times as big as the final 20,800-vote margin between Biden and Trump in 2002. That CTCL-funded election interference so obviously flipped Wisconsin for Biden in 2020 is not merely “troubling,” as WILL alleges. It is outrageous.
By injecting more than $419 million of Mark Zuckerberg’s laundered money
...takeover of government election offices
...in key areas of these swing states.
--
Welcome to the Future...
...takeover of government election offices
...in key areas of these swing states.
--
Welcome to the Future...
Found one of Poindexter's old thread that may have foretold 2020's possible election fraud:
Is It Time For Algorithms That Flag Potential Election Fraud? -- Please Answer Both Questions.
Algorithms exist for almost everything else from credit card theft to consumer preferences. So why not for election fraud? Not to change or negate counts, but to flag highly unlikely results for further investigation.
An article I read a few days ago got me to thinking about this... it said something to the effect that new ballots were discovered in Florida that favored democrats 3 to 1 in an area that was previously 2 to 1.
There may very well be legitimate reasons for the shift. But if not, how likely is that due to chance?
Please provide your intuitive responses to the following two questions before I post the answers (or you calculate them). Elections are not random processes like drawing colored balls from urns and this is an artificial oversimplification. But it does serve a useful purpose that I'll explain after replies are posted.
Again, I'm looking for intuitive responses only. Please do not calculate anything.
Situation: CNN County has an endless supply of voters and they favor democrats 2 to 1. Voting has ended. 500,000 votes were cast that favored democrats almost exactly 2 to 1.
Question 1: 1,000 more votes are found. Assume all 1,000 voters who cast them are a random sample of the CNN County population. What is the probability that those 1,000 votes favor democrats 3 to 1 or better?
Question 2: 10,000 more votes are found. Assume all 10,000 voters who cast them are a random sample of the CNN County population. What is the probability that those 10,000 votes favor democrats 3 to 1 or better?
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...on-fraud-please-answer-both-questions.326973/
This thread is three pages long. The answer is here:
Nobody wants to take a shot at the answers? OK. Here they are. With a brief preamble.
Let's drop the strawmen. This is not about trying to "prove" fraud in Florida. But news reports from Florida got me thinking and I started this thread to show how counter-intuitive vote count probabilities can be.
Why? If votes are suddenly "found" that deviate significantly from overall ratios (e.g. from 2:1 to 3:1) there had better be good reasons. Because the odds of it happening by chance alone are astronomically small.
If liberal Unicorn Village's sealed ballots were accidentally misplaced for a few hours, no problem. But a suspicious scenario would be if a large number of ballots breaking 3:1 or more are suddenly "found" that had been randomly set aside throughout the day because of random machine breakdowns in otherwise 2:1 areas.
The problem, as stated in the OP, is answered using the binomial CDF. For perspective I'll answer questions 1 & 2 in terms of the odds of winning the Powerball Jackpot (approx. 1 in 292,000,000 with one ticket).
Answer to Question 1: 333 expected republican votes versus 250 or less actually obtained is no big deal, right? Wrong! You're more likely to win the Powerball Jackpot with just two tickets.
Answer to Question 2: 3,333 expected republican votes versus 2,500 or less actually obtained is nothing to be concerned about, right? That's even less likely... a lot less. You have a better chance of winning the Powerball Jackpot 8 times in a row with just one ticket per drawing.
If you object to the problem as stated in the OP because in real life we'd be sampling without replacement from a finite population, fine. In that case the hypergeometric distribution would apply. The probabilities don't change much and the above answers would still be correct.
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...wer-both-questions.326973/page-3#post-4760659
Is It Time For Algorithms That Flag Potential Election Fraud? -- Please Answer Both Questions.
Algorithms exist for almost everything else from credit card theft to consumer preferences. So why not for election fraud? Not to change or negate counts, but to flag highly unlikely results for further investigation.
An article I read a few days ago got me to thinking about this... it said something to the effect that new ballots were discovered in Florida that favored democrats 3 to 1 in an area that was previously 2 to 1.
There may very well be legitimate reasons for the shift. But if not, how likely is that due to chance?
Please provide your intuitive responses to the following two questions before I post the answers (or you calculate them). Elections are not random processes like drawing colored balls from urns and this is an artificial oversimplification. But it does serve a useful purpose that I'll explain after replies are posted.
Again, I'm looking for intuitive responses only. Please do not calculate anything.
Situation: CNN County has an endless supply of voters and they favor democrats 2 to 1. Voting has ended. 500,000 votes were cast that favored democrats almost exactly 2 to 1.
Question 1: 1,000 more votes are found. Assume all 1,000 voters who cast them are a random sample of the CNN County population. What is the probability that those 1,000 votes favor democrats 3 to 1 or better?
Question 2: 10,000 more votes are found. Assume all 10,000 voters who cast them are a random sample of the CNN County population. What is the probability that those 10,000 votes favor democrats 3 to 1 or better?
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...on-fraud-please-answer-both-questions.326973/
This thread is three pages long. The answer is here:
Nobody wants to take a shot at the answers? OK. Here they are. With a brief preamble.
Let's drop the strawmen. This is not about trying to "prove" fraud in Florida. But news reports from Florida got me thinking and I started this thread to show how counter-intuitive vote count probabilities can be.
Why? If votes are suddenly "found" that deviate significantly from overall ratios (e.g. from 2:1 to 3:1) there had better be good reasons. Because the odds of it happening by chance alone are astronomically small.
If liberal Unicorn Village's sealed ballots were accidentally misplaced for a few hours, no problem. But a suspicious scenario would be if a large number of ballots breaking 3:1 or more are suddenly "found" that had been randomly set aside throughout the day because of random machine breakdowns in otherwise 2:1 areas.
The problem, as stated in the OP, is answered using the binomial CDF. For perspective I'll answer questions 1 & 2 in terms of the odds of winning the Powerball Jackpot (approx. 1 in 292,000,000 with one ticket).
Answer to Question 1: 333 expected republican votes versus 250 or less actually obtained is no big deal, right? Wrong! You're more likely to win the Powerball Jackpot with just two tickets.
Answer to Question 2: 3,333 expected republican votes versus 2,500 or less actually obtained is nothing to be concerned about, right? That's even less likely... a lot less. You have a better chance of winning the Powerball Jackpot 8 times in a row with just one ticket per drawing.
If you object to the problem as stated in the OP because in real life we'd be sampling without replacement from a finite population, fine. In that case the hypergeometric distribution would apply. The probabilities don't change much and the above answers would still be correct.
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...wer-both-questions.326973/page-3#post-4760659
What Really Happened
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.
- Overall, we rate What Really Happened far-right biased and a Tin-Foil Hat Conspiracy and Quackery Level Pseudoscience website based on the near-constant promotion of false and misleading information.
Founded in 1999, What Really Happened is a news and opinion blog that is dedicated 100% to the promotion of right-wing conspiracies and pseudoscience. The website lacks transparency as it does not offer an about page or clearly describe ownership.
Funded by / Ownership
Michael Rivero owns What Really Happened. He is a podcaster, actor, and director. Advertising and a shop that sells merchandise generate revenue.
Analysis / Bias
They cover all the usual: The Clinton body count, false flags, global warming denial, Jewish Banker conspiracy, Vince Foster, 9-11, etc. There is not much else to say here other than it must be seen to be believed. Finally, if you really want to know “what really happened?” this would be the last site to visit.
Overall, we rate What Really Happened far-right biased and a Tin-Foil Hat Conspiracy and Quackery Level Pseudoscience website based on the near-constant promotion of false and misleading information. (D
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/what-really-happened/
Riiiight.LOL, COPIUM is still flowing, more bullshit math