HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I need some debunking hel...

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:27 PM

I need some debunking help, arguing against math-based claims of voter fraud in PA

https://theredelephants.com/trust-the-science-there-is-undeniable-scientific-evidence-of-widespread-voter-fraud

Trust the Science: There is Undeniable Scientific Evidence of Widespread Voter Fraud

Since November 4th, there have been dozens of statistical analyses completed by data scientists, showing statistical impossibilities in hundreds of counties across the country.

One thorough scientific analysis published calls into question the legitimacy of Biden victories in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia.

This analysis was a through review of 8,954 vote updates and highlighted four decisive updates, which were the most anomalous updates in the entire data set. The experts found that each of the vote updates do not follow the generally observed pattern, and the anomalous behavior of those updates is particularly extreme.

Another scientific analysis by data scientists revealed How Pennsylvania Democrats Used Fake Voter Registration “Birthdays” to Commit Voter Fraud.

The analysts constructed a new metric of potential voter fraud using suspicious distributions of birthdays in Pennsylvania voter registration data. Under this metric, a number of counties in Pennsylvania have extremely unlikely distributions of voter birthdays. Seven counties representing almost 1.4 million votes total (Northumberland, Delaware, Montgomery, Lawrence, Dauphin, LeHigh, and Luzerne) have suspicious birthdays above the 99.5th percentile of plausible distributions, even when using conservative assumptions about what these distributions should look like.

Another statistical analyst recently revealed a scenario of how Democrats pulled off massive fraud in Montgomery county, Pennsylvania with ballot harvesting on a massive scale.

Another scientific analysis looked at the shift in voting patterns that occurred between the 2016 and 2020 elections to identify suspicious counties. The two with the largest shifts were Oakland and Wayne in Michigan.



I got into a Facebook tussle with a guy who just starting swallowing NewsMax. He's a friend of a friend, but I'd like to specifically rebut the claims he's vomiting from this article.

On the face of it, it's silly. I don't know how much math this cat even knows. But is there some site that features debunking of the math-based arguments that Giuliani and his crew concocted in trying to throw spaghetti against the wall back in December? Maybe a link to the Pennsylvania court's responses to the data that that Trump's lawyers introduced in their mad expostulations?

https://www.revolver.news/2020/12/pennsylvania-election-fraud-exposed-by-suspicious-birthdays/

Statistician Reveals How Pennsylvania Democrats Used Fake Voter Registration “Birthdays” to Commit Voter Fraud


We construct a new metric of potential voter fraud using suspicious distributions of birthdays in Pennsylvania voter registration data. The basic idea is that people picking fake birthdays will make predictable non-random choices, like picking round numbers for days of the month, and not knowing what true birth month distributions look like.

Under this metric, a number of counties in Pennsylvania have extremely unlikely distributions of voter birthdays. Seven counties representing almost 1.4 million votes total (Northumberland, Delaware, Montgomery, Lawrence, Dauphin, LeHigh, and Luzerne) have suspicious birthdays above the 99.5th percentile of plausible distributions, even when using conservative assumptions about what these distributions should look like.

These suspicious birthdays also matter significantly for election outcomes. While there are suspicious counties that vote Republican overall, in general more suspicious birthdays in a county are strongly associated with a larger Biden vote share, and a higher Biden vote share relative to all Democrat presidential candidates since 2000. More suspicious birthdays are also associated with a higher vote share for Jorgensen relative to Trump (consistent with a fraud scheme aiming to get Biden high but not “too high”, while simultaneously giving as few votes to Trump as possible).




I'm hoping for something pithy and readable.

66 replies, 1664 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 66 replies Author Time Post
Reply I need some debunking help, arguing against math-based claims of voter fraud in PA (Original post)
Bucky Jan 2021 OP
CincyDem Jan 2021 #1
Chin music Jan 2021 #3
Jerry2144 Jan 2021 #2
Bucky Jan 2021 #8
Jerry2144 Jan 2021 #37
angstlessk Jan 2021 #39
Hav Jan 2021 #56
Bev54 Jan 2021 #34
stillcool Jan 2021 #4
LeftInTX Jan 2021 #5
Bucky Jan 2021 #13
LeftInTX Jan 2021 #28
ismnotwasm Jan 2021 #6
Bucky Jan 2021 #15
Denzil_DC Jan 2021 #55
mobeau69 Jan 2021 #7
Bucky Jan 2021 #25
Bobstandard Jan 2021 #59
exboyfil Jan 2021 #9
Bucky Jan 2021 #17
JonLP24 Jan 2021 #10
Bucky Jan 2021 #18
kysrsoze Jan 2021 #11
Bucky Jan 2021 #21
KayF Jan 2021 #12
Bucky Jan 2021 #30
frazzled Jan 2021 #14
Bucky Jan 2021 #31
frazzled Jan 2021 #33
blm Jan 2021 #16
Bucky Jan 2021 #35
blm Jan 2021 #51
Pobeka Jan 2021 #19
Bucky Jan 2021 #38
Buckeye_Democrat Jan 2021 #20
Bucky Jan 2021 #40
Buckeye_Democrat Jan 2021 #46
brooklynite Jan 2021 #22
TheRealNorth Jan 2021 #29
Quixote1818 Jan 2021 #32
Bucky Jan 2021 #41
LeftInTX Jan 2021 #49
LeftInTX Jan 2021 #43
SharonClark Jan 2021 #44
Binkie The Clown Jan 2021 #23
Bucky Jan 2021 #45
Binkie The Clown Jan 2021 #47
greenjar_01 Jan 2021 #24
Bucky Jan 2021 #48
TheRealNorth Jan 2021 #26
Hav Jan 2021 #27
Bucky Jan 2021 #54
msongs Jan 2021 #36
OilemFirchen Jan 2021 #61
Irish_Dem Jan 2021 #42
SoonerPride Jan 2021 #50
gibraltar72 Jan 2021 #52
Mariana Jan 2021 #53
ProfessorGAC Jan 2021 #57
LiberalFighter Jan 2021 #58
OilemFirchen Jan 2021 #60
onenote Jan 2021 #62
BumRushDaShow Jan 2021 #63
mackdaddy Jan 2021 #64
rgbecker Jan 2021 #65
jmowreader Jan 2021 #66

Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:29 PM

1. Brings to mind an aphorism from the office...there's liars, damn liars and statisticians. lol n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CincyDem (Reply #1)


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:31 PM

2. Define suspicious birthdays

The Term suspicious birthdays is meaningless. What is so suspicious about it? Everybody has a birthday. It’s an incomplete thought. Percentiles make sense when you’re talking about height, weight, side of a physical characteristic, income. But percentile is meaningless. People with birthdays on January 1 are in the 0.3 percentile while people with birthdays on December 31 are in the 99.7 percentile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jerry2144 (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:36 PM

8. It's in the article. They're reporting an unlikely occurrence of DOBs on the 5th, 10th, 15th, & 20th

It sounds piddly, but I'd rather have a concrete argument against this math rather than a pithy rhetorical question that only reinforces my skepticism.

Fishy "reoccurring numbers" arguments were the same bases DUers used in 2004 to "prove" that Bush cheated against Kerry in Ohio and Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:52 PM

37. It is still meaningless

It is still meaningless. Percentile does not apply to a random distribution of dates. It would apply if there were a normal gaussian or Poisson distribution or several other distributions. Think test scores for a large population of people. 99 percentile means the person scored better than 99% of the test takers. Or diameter of a penny. Those are all random sizes, but distributed close to the standard size. Some might be a few thousandths bigger and some slightly smaller. A penny at the 99 percentile is bigger than 99% of them. But dates? What does that mean? If you took the population of a state and plotted their date of birth (just the number like 5) they would all have about the same number of people, except for the 29th and30th eleven months have it), and 31st (only 7 months). There will be some that have a few more people and others that have a few less. What they should look at is the standard deviation of that set. And even then, it doesn’t tell you much because each day is different and independent from the other. I am not a statistician and my statistics class I took was back when we last had a TV star in the White House ( not Bonzo the chimp, but his dumber costar).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:56 PM

39. Do they offer the years along with the days?

Maybe baby boomers, and pre birth control were on the earlier on the list?

Later women got to decide when the birth should happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:17 PM

56. I only skimmed that article

but I didn't figure out why some cities were more abnormal than other districts, it just mentioned that percentile crap.

But these higher values for certain birthday days seem to coincide with another analysis so it's not something that was seen only in this election:
www.panix.com/~murphy/bday.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jerry2144 (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:51 PM

34. If people do not provide a birthday they will choose Jan 1,1900

or something like that. It is pretty consistent in not just government but most businesses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:32 PM

4. birthdays? for real?

I have no idea who this is, but why not argue that water is not wet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:34 PM

5. Is the data even correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftInTX (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:39 PM

13. Who the hell knows? I don't know how to go about looking up the answer

That would definitely be something that a math nerd would enjoy doing. I've seen a couple of YouTube videos by mathematicians who pull apart these types of silly bad-math arguments by Trumpheads. But my googling around didn't find anything that addresses these claims in particular. That's why I'm seeing if any DUers know about a Snopes for Math Bunkum site

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:49 PM

28. I don't know of any Snopes or anything..the amount of data here is too much for an amateur

You have to download the data. One site wanted $$$...

The rest are in zipped CSV files...no thanks...the amount of data is incredible for an amateur.

I tried downloading a CSV file of all the Armenians who landed at Ellis Island. I believe there were about 20,000 entries. My computer could barely handle it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:35 PM

6. Well the birthday stuff is cherry picked horseshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:40 PM

15. I imagine so. But do you have a math-based argument to support that claim?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:17 PM

55. If you're fighting fire with fire, try The Birthday Paradox:

Probability and the Birthday Paradox

Introduction
Have you ever noticed how sometimes what seems logical turns out to be proved false with a little math? For instance, how many people do you think it would take to survey, on average, to find two people who share the same birthday? Due to probability, sometimes an event is more likely to occur than we believe it to. In this case, if you survey a random group of just 23 people there is actually about a 50–50 chance that two of them will have the same birthday. This is known as the birthday paradox. Don't believe it's true? You can test it and see mathematical probability in action!

Background
The birthday paradox, also known as the birthday problem, states that in a random group of 23 people, there is about a 50 percent chance that two people have the same birthday. Is this really true? There are multiple reasons why this seems like a paradox. One is that when in a room with 22 other people, if a person compares his or her birthday with the birthdays of the other people it would make for only 22 comparisons—only 22 chances for people to share the same birthday.

But when all 23 birthdays are compared against each other, it makes for much more than 22 comparisons. How much more? Well, the first person has 22 comparisons to make, but the second person was already compared to the first person, so there are only 21 comparisons to make. The third person then has 20 comparisons, the fourth person has 19 and so on. If you add up all possible comparisons (22 + 21 + 20 + 19 + … +1) the sum is 253 comparisons, or combinations. Consequently, each group of 23 people involves 253 comparisons, or 253 chances for matching birthdays.
...
As mentioned before, in a group of 23 people, there are 253 comparisons, or combinations, that can be made. So, we're not looking at just one comparison, but at 253 comparisons. Every one of the 253 combinations has the same odds, 99.726027 percent, of not being a match. If you multiply 99.726027 percent by 99.726027 253 times, or calculate (364/365)^253, you'll find there's a 49.952 percent chance that all 253 comparisons contain no matches. Consequently, the odds that there is a birthday match in those 253 comparisons is 1 – 49.952 percent = 50.048 percent, or just over half! The more trials you run, the closer the actual probability should approach 50 percent.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bring-science-home-probability-birthday-paradox/


The calculations will obviously be different as you're arguing with someone about a few days of a month (i.e. one of 28/30/31 days), not a whole year. That will give a result even more in your argument's favour.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:35 PM

7. Do you mean meth-based claims?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mobeau69 (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:48 PM

25. LOL!

Whoever compiled this writes like a math nerd. This is undoutedly either a slanted or fraudulent analysis. It's not just random math gibberish, however. It's a highly specialized (and thus probably tunnel visioned) argument. I'm just looking for someone who might have written out the official response to this bad math

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:29 PM

59. Note lack of links to studies

Your pal presents articles about some alleged studies. If you want a math-based reply, you need to see the actual study.

So just say to your pal, “I’m keeping an open mind. Provide me with links to the actual studies so I can look into it. If you don’t have the links, and the article you talk about doesn’t have them, then there is no way to know whether this is real or not. And you should be suspicious.”

Of course, there is the not insignificant chance that you bring this up because you think you’ve got a gotcha for all of us to wonder over. Your post really does follow the model of many trolly posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:36 PM

9. They were using a default date when the birth date

wasn't known. They have been cleaning up the voter rolls. There were stories on it at the time. That would throw any statistics off. When they looked, all voters were valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:42 PM

17. I thought of that, but the "default date" computerized registrations use are always the 1st...

and generally January 1st. This is alleging that the "made up dates" are the dates that are divisible by 5. So it's not the same phenomenon that we're familiar with due to the bogus Georgia fraud allegations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:36 PM

10. I have no idea what a suspicious birthday is

The article doesn't even explain what a suspicious birthday is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:43 PM

18. The full article does. It's the high frequency of DOBs landing on the 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:37 PM

11. Everything they use to "expose" fraud ends up being 100% horseshit. Don't even play the game.

The truth is, not one reputable source of information has divulged any information indicating there was even a small amount of voter fraud, much less anything significant. Nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kysrsoze (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:45 PM

21. I'm dealing with someone being suckered into their worldview, not the bullshitters themselves

"Don't even play the game." is shrugging and walking off, not the debunk I'm looking for. If it was someone who didn't matter, that'd be good advice tho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:38 PM

12. i was given an assignment in a statistics class

we were all given a ton of baseball game data. Each student was given a different particular game, and the assignment was to come up with a statistical proof that the game MUST have been fixed. We could do it because it's just a matter of slicing and dicing the numbers in the way that gives us the answer we wanted.

For this guy just ask him what the judge said when he took it to court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KayF (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:50 PM

30. Yes, "what the judge said when he took it to court" is exactly what I need.

That's what I couldn't find. I'm not arguing with author of the article. I'm arguing with someone who's been bedazzled and bamboozled by the faux scienciness of this article.

That's what I need help finding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:39 PM

14. There is no fact on the face of the Earth

that will dispel these people of their beliefs. Indeed, it has been said that providing facts only strengthens their belief in the untruths of the conspiracy theory.

So don’t bother. Just laugh in their face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:50 PM

31. I'm not taking the lazy way out. Sorry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:51 PM

33. Knock yourself out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:41 PM

16. Here's compiled links debunking voter fraud, inc Pennsylvania

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:52 PM

35. Wait, are you saying voter fraud in PA hasn't been debunked?

I know that at least a couple of judges have done exactly that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:06 PM

51. Links Debunking fraud INCLUDING Pennsylvania.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:44 PM

19. Two things come to mind.

1) What is this birthday score metric, and is it being appropriately used in this situation. Often someone wanting a certain result may cherry pick through different metrics in order to find the one that give the answer they are looking for, rather than the correct metric for the analysis.

2) Can someone independently reproduce that graph, using data collected directly from the state of PA? (verify the result)

If there is a problem with either of those, the result is likely bogus.

On edit, I read the first few paragraphs at that link, and here is the *first* problem (I think), from the link:

"We construct a new metric of potential voter fraud using suspicious distributions of birthdays in Pennsylvania voter registration data. The basic idea is that people picking fake birthdays will make predictable non-random choices, like picking round numbers for days of the month, and not knowing what true birth month distributions look like."

I'm going to guess this new metric is ***bogus***. i.e. not vetted, supported by a peer reviewed community of statisticians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pobeka (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:54 PM

38. Thanks.

Those are the kinds of questions to be asked. But I strongly suspect that someone out there in Internetland has actually answered those provocative questions. That's the link I'm looking for.

I believe (and prefer) to argue from evidence, not just from speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:44 PM

20. The wording isn't even clear!

Reminds me of the pseudo-science articles about climate change.

I stopped reading after getting to the part about absentee ballot returns "on election day". The warning bells went off in my head because I've seen that type of vague wording in other deceptions. Then the person who posted the lies would later reply, "Well, the article specified on election day! So it was truthful!" Sure, but it wasn't the whole truth, was it?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:57 PM

40. Yeah, bad mathematicians tend to write like that.

I've done editing for people like that. They have a Ben Carson-like blindered focus on fields of mathy speculation that doesn't lend itself to insightful data analysis. They can caculate rubbersheet geometry quadratics, but don't grasp what impact it would have on the lives of ordinary people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:02 PM

46. I majored in math (and physics), so I've seen...

... the well-worded and clear articles from legitimate articles, trying to make everything as understandable as possible... for anyone with the education to even follow it, of course.

This article hits many of the deception warning signs and, surely like you and many others here, I'm not going to waste more time looking at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:46 PM

22. Don't try to challenge the data: you won't win

Try a logic exercise:

1) Point out that neither you nor he have access to the election data.

2) Point out that the people who DO have access to the election data are election officials, up to and including the Secretary of State.

3) Point out that Trump's lawyers filed more than 60 lawsuits.

4) Ask: Why didn't Trump's lawyers claim fraud in their numerous lawsuits?

5) Ask: Why didn't the Republican officials in the battleground States agree with the claim that the votes were fraudulant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:49 PM

29. Good argument

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:50 PM

32. Good stuff. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:59 PM

41. This is good, but I'm good at doing those types of meta arguments. They're not persuasive.

Meta arguments only work with people who share one's biases. I'm looking for something that'll knock the pegs out from under his being impressed by all the mathy talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:04 PM

49. You could tell this person to download the datasets and look themselves

https://wiki.audittheelection.com/index.php/Datasets

It would keep them busy for a few years! (Who knows what is in all these files?...I'm not downloading any of them!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:00 PM

43. This...

Apparently the data is "available"...but good gosh, the file size would be so large it would grind the average computer to a screeching halt!

I had a CSV file for only 20,000 Armenian immigrants (Ship manifest)...I couldn't work with the file because it used too much memory in my computer. I have 12 GB of RAM.and decent CPU, so it isn't like I have an obsolete computer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:00 PM

44. If you must argue with a nut job then

Brooklynite’s strategy is the most logical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:46 PM

23. Here you go


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binkie The Clown (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:01 PM

45. THIS was what I was looking for! Thanks!

I watched this guy a couple of months ago. I wasn't able to find him again.

You're a prince, Binkie :salute:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:02 PM

47. I'm a math nerd, so I'm subscribed to his channel. :) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:47 PM

24. Don't waste your time arguing with idiots and bad faith fascists

That's my advice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenjar_01 (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:02 PM

48. I'm arguing with someone being pulled by mathy talk from the gullible middle

I'm trying to wedge someone away from the bad faith fascists.

If I only wanted to talk with people I agreed with, I wouldn't ever post outside of DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:48 PM

26. Would really need to see more on the methodology....

But my guess is they broke the rules of statistics or logic somewhere to come up with something that was "statistically significant".

Thats why the sciences have peer-reviewed journals to examine the methodology closely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:48 PM

27. I started reading that analysis about anomalies regarding vote updates

and gave up before finishing it. It's such vague nonsense and misleading. There are no rules for "normal" uploads of the batches. There are parts of large cities where Dems get 80-90% of the votes. Further, Dems used absentee voting in far higher numbers than Repubs which tilts this big Dem advantage even more as the mentioned states were among those that counted election day votes first.
For them it's an anomaly that there were vote updates with high advantages both in relative terms and absolute numbers. It's bs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hav (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:09 PM

54. Yeah, that was my takeaway too.

No explanation of the data sets they were drawing off of, no meaningful comparison of what a normal range distribution would look like, no context. There's certainly no independent facts that connect the data with the implied cause of the implied fraud.

It's an "agency detection" argument. Something weirdly coincidental shows up in the data... therefore Democrats must've invented fake voters and stuffed the ballot boxes--yet somehow never got caught. Kinda like how Percival Lowell saw fuzzy shadows on Mars, and based on that datapoint alone concluded it must be canals, therefor canals must've been built by an advanced civilization, therefor Mars is inhabited by a technologically superior society of desperately parched warlords.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 06:52 PM

36. german nazis had all kinds of data and statistics to prove their claims nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:48 PM

61. And science!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:00 PM

42. You are most likely wasting your time. These people get angry when presented with

truth and facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:06 PM

50. The courts repeatedly said there is no evidence of fraud

Case closed.

Literally

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:08 PM

52. Tell him he should report what he knows.

Texas AG will pay him big.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:09 PM

53. You can't argue people out of their religious beliefs.

He's a cult member. The very fact that he's referring to these nutty right-wing conspiracy sites is strong evidence that he's not interested in engaging with reality.

If you still want to play, tell him you'll only consider data from primary sources, and calculations he's performed himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:20 PM

57. The Second One Is Statistical Nonsense

When working with a sample set that large, to suggest people "tend" to pick "round" numbers is BS.

Without any math needed, some subset of all those people would have been smart enough (intelligence & educational distributions) to intentionally pick the date totally at random with dice from a Yahtzee game.
There is also little evidence that aside from magician like forced choice, that people don't think randomly about dates. Of course, that's aside from memorable dates like their own bday or anniversary.

In addition, it's known that there is a maldistribution of birthdays because of conceptions around major dates.(Christmas, New Years, valentines day, commonness of April - June weddings, etc).
So expecting a distribution anything close to uniform as the basis for comparison, is inherently flawed.

Take a look at this link. There are simple bar charts in there that show both actual & expected births, by month and day of month, is not a uniform distribution. Takes 2 seconds to see there's nothing uniform about it.
https://www.panix.com/~murphy/bday.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:27 PM

58. Who are the experts? What is their expertise with voter data?

How do they account for people moving in and out of an area? That would impact birthdays.

Did they take into account that voter registration methods change over time? From no registration needed. To register but date of birth not needed. From voter registration on paper and filed in a filing system. To transferring registration from paper to computer by data input operators. To online voter registration.

Did they compare the birthdays with the general population. All of the people? Did they take into account events in history that impacted births?

Did they compare the birthdays with another group like students in the local community?

I did a comparison with my month and day and it came up 49 times in a database of 13,597. If each birthday had the same number of people there should be 17,885 people in that database. With about 37 people for each birthday. But it was 31.5% higher than the average.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:40 PM

60. They didn't factor in the MPVFB*.

* More People Voted For Biden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:50 PM

62. Yesterday nine of my FB friends had birthdays. Today only one.

So does that suggest some of my 9 friends are lying about their birthday?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 07:51 PM

63. This looks like complete and utter bullshit and quackery

First and foremost, is that they are somehow trying to associate "registered voters" from a database (and their ages) with "actual voters", where they would have NO IDEA who on a registered voter list, actually voted, let alone for who or their ages. Ballots are "secret".

As a note - the top 5 counties in the state of PA in terms of population are -

1.) Philadelphia
2.) Allegheny
3.) Montgomery
4.) Bucks
5.) Delaware

And out of 67 counties (as of 2012 data with the below), PA had 36 counties that had less than 100,000 population -

https://us-places.com/Pennsylvania/population-by-County.htm

Also as an illustrative note - the below is a map of the locations of most of PA's hundreds of colleges and universities and surprise surprise, it seems the counties that are being focused on also contain clusters of college/universities -




What they also don't seem to reveal is here in PA, ballots are not just some scrap of paper where you stick an "X" or fill in an oval next to the name and then shove into a box. The ballots (and envelopes for mail-ins or print-outs for machine voting) are barcoded and QR-coded specifically for the individual's precinct and is unique and tracked in the state's database.

ETA from our Lt. Gov. John Fetterman just today -




TEXT

John Fetterman
@JohnFetterman
·
Jan 14, 2021
🚨
PA VOTER FRAUD ALERT
🚨


Big development for “Returns in Sunglasses”:

“Thurman was held for trial on felony charges of repeat voting at elections, and forgery, identity theft”
Chester County man facing trial for voter fraud says he was tricked into voting twice
EAST GOSHEN — Attorneys for a Willistown man who was charged with voter fraud in the November presidential election by casting a ballot in his son’s name are contending that
dailylocal.com

John Fetterman
@JohnFetterman
Asking on behalf of Pennsylvania- Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick:
GIF
2:20 PM · Jan 14, 2021 from Braddock, PA


and he's even selling fund-raising merchandise about his "Dude in Forty Fort" (one of only two "fraud" cases in PA with both being Republicans)!




TEXT

John Fetterman
@JohnFetterman
You’ve been demanding merch.

We heard you.
👂


SNEAK-PEAK: Limited-run commemorative shirts from our forthcoming collection:

(L) Dan Patrick wanted voter fraud. PA gave it to him. Now, where my money Dan?!

(R) The most famous case of voter fraud in
🇺🇸
: My dude in Forty Fort.
Image
Image
Radical Liberal Nasty Dr. Mom
😉🍑”😷😷!”
@Drmomwhome
Replying to @JohnFetterman
Merch! Merch! Merch!
9:58 AM · Jan 13, 2021 from Pennsylvania, USA


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 08:02 PM

64. Faulty "Assumptions" is their main problem.

even when using conservative assumptions about what these distributions should look like.


Assumptions and Should are always big red flag words. How do they know these "should" be the distributions. They are trying to prove some specific thing from data that also is not uniform. More mail in votes are Democratic because Trump told his follower to not use mail in votes. Mail in votes were not allowed by the Republican legislature to be counted until AFTER the main election so yes they would be reported after most of the Republican votes were counted.

On it own these proof of nothing. They could be used to maybe steer a true followup. I they think some county or even block of votes was hinky, then they can do a real sample of those voter registrations. Just pull up any or even all of those voters information and see if they are real people. Google them and call them up. If they really don't exist or they did not register then you have a real potential crime.

Otherwise they are just looking at random noise that they have make believe patterns for, Like looking at the stars and seeing a big dipper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 08:04 PM

65. If this is just facebook debating, I suggest you turn it off.

Those sites are both rabid right wing lie spreading entities and are not interested in the truth.

These claims of fraud all involve basically total lack of faith in the system which is, all over the country, watched over by both parties at every level of government. Challenges are made and followed up on all the time. Seldom are results affected.

The Birth date thing is interesting. They are assuming that because the birth dates are spread differently in certain counties that is indicative of fraud in registrations and then they try to show that those counties voted for Biden rather than Trump....but that doesn't
work, so they simply say that because those counties voted 70-30 for Trump, the fraud still must have been committed by Democrats to throw the few votes in those counties for Biden into the total PA mix. So we are to believe in counties that vote 70-30 for Trump, Democrats are slipping in to the registration files and putting in fraudulent voters, who then send in fraudulent ballots all without any Republican oversight.

This could all be easily confirmed and charges filed instead of just claiming voter fraud. Simply pick, say 100 of the names with the so called "rounded" birthdays....5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30th.....and call them up and see if they are who they say they are...this could be done in less than a couple of hours. If there is a 99% chance they are fraudulent, you would find quite a few who I guess they are saying don't exist. Unlikely.

The entire list of registered voters is available from PA for $20. Have at it. While you have them on the phone, ask them to please vote against Senator Toomey next chance they get!

[link:https://www.pavoterservices.pa.gov/Pages/PurchasePAFULLVoterExport.aspx|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2021, 08:33 PM

66. This leaves out three salient points...

If we had actually committed voter fraud, don't you think:

1) We would have won the state by more than 81,660 votes,
2) we would have won some of the counties in the middle of the state, and
3) We would have swept the downballot races?

I suspect the real answer as to what happened in Pennsylvania is "the urban centers just didn't like Dickless over there and voted him out."

("Is this true?" "Yes, it is true. This man has no dick."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread