Only 0.3% Of A Chance Election WASN'T Fraudulent

[TC Shuts Up]

[Turkeytop]

And your chart proves that somehow?

[TC Shuts Up]

I have to ask you one question.

Why is it that you care so much what happens in a foreign country's election? Are you paid for your advocacy?

[TC Shuts Up]

SCIENCE uses statistics. There is only a less than 0.3 percent chance that the election wasn't rigged, according to statistics. It's more than three standard deviations from the mean.

[Turkeytop]

SCIENCE uses statistics. There is only a less than 0.3 percent chance that the election wasn't rigged, according to statistics. It's more than three standard deviations from the mean.

I'm genuinely curious' I don't understand statistics and charts as well as you do. What is the significant about the data in your chart that points to fraud?

[bmw]

As a bit of a statistician myself, I can say that the conclusion TC Shuts Up reaches is faulty in so many ways that I don't even know where to start with this one. So just a few key points:

Bad assumption #1 - that the standard deviation is useful in reaching such a conclusion.
Bad assumption #2 - that the percent chance of fraud is equivalent to the confidence level (the term of which isn't even properly used here)

And perhaps most importantly - that you can't cherry-pick one data point. Sure, the odds of any individual data point being 3 standard deviations away are low, but the odds of at least 1 out of those 26 points being 3 deviations away from the average would be significantly higher (albeit still less than 50/50).

Stats aside, this particular election cycle had unusual factors that resulted in higher than normal turnout.

[Turkeytop]

I know nothing about the subject. It looks to me like he is saying that the higher than normal number of votes is an indication of fraud. Even if someone,could make that interpretation there is no way of determining who was the beneficiary of the fraudulent voting.

Did't both candidates break records in total numbers of votes received?

[Motown322]

As a bit of a statistician myself, I can say that the conclusion TC Shuts Up reaches is faulty in so many ways that I don't even know where to start with this one. So just a few key points:

Bad assumption #1 - that the standard deviation is useful in reaching such a conclusion.
Bad assumption #2 - that the percent chance of fraud is equivalent to the confidence level (the term of which isn't even properly used here)

And perhaps most importantly - that you can't cherry-pick one data point. Sure, the odds of any individual data point being 3 standard deviations away are low, but the odds of at least 1 out of those 26 points being 3 deviations away from the average would be significantly higher (albeit still less than 50/50).

Stats aside, this particular election cycle had unusual factors that resulted in higher than normal turnout.

So you're saying that TCSU is full of shit? This is a revelation. Next thing you know someone will tell me the sun rises in the East and my entire world will be thrown for a loop.

[TC Shuts Up]

It's not my theory. But there are scores of other things that are similarly out of whack.

The chance of this election NOT BEING FRAUDULENT are about equal to the chance of having 60-70 close Presidential associates committing suicide or dying in plane crashes. In other words, within an asymptotic epsilon of ZERO.

[Turkeytop]

If there was fraud, how come Trump's team of high priced lawyers couldn't come up with a single piece of evidence

[km1125]

I know nothing about the subject. It looks to me like he is saying that the higher than normal number of votes is an indication of fraud. Even if someone,could make that interpretation there is no way of determining who was the beneficiary of the fraudulent voting.

Did't both candidates break records in total numbers of votes received?

I believe they did which also seems "fishy". We were told there were "tons" of folks who had voted for Trump in 2016 but could not do it again, even if they did not vote for Biden. How did he possibly garner even more votes than he got in 2016? Some of his votes should have gone to Biden, and some should have just evaporated.

[Turkeytop]

Well, whoever organized it committed the perfect crime. They didn't leave even a trace of evidence.

[fuzzpower]

All elections, possibly as far back as George Washington or at least John Adams, have a degree of fraud. Whether it changed the outcome is the real question.

[screen glare]

Face it. Trump fired himself. You can’t be as unfit as he - especially in a life or death crisis with both health and economic consequences - and win reelection.

And it looks like Vlad couldn’t pull him over the finish line this time due to all those old fashioned, turned in early, paper ballots combined with historical voter motivation and participation.

The American people threw the sick ignoramus out along with porn wife and the rest of his dark comedy cast. (From “Central Casting” as he says.)

[MWmetalhead]

I believe they did which also seems "fishy". We were told there were "tons" of folks who had voted for Trump in 2016 but could not do it again, even if they did not vote for Biden. How did he possibly garner even more votes than he got in 2016? Some of his votes should have gone to Biden, and some should have just evaporated.

Volatility in election turnout is not a new thing.

There were a number of polarizing issues that inspired people to vote this election cycle. Trump himself is extremely polarizing.

Also, widespread early voting and mail-in voting made it very easy for people to vote who might not normally vote. Access to the ballot box increased, which is why the number of votes cast increased.

I'm sure the Trump campaign had plenty of data indicating mail-in voting would lead to a higher than normal turnout among Dem and Dem-leaning voters and would make it difficult for the President to win re-election, which is why Trump has been bloviating for months about mail-in voting. It is also why a handful of screwball GOP operatives and scuzzy Trump-friendly attorneys are filing lawsuits to try to disenfranchise the folks who voted by that method.

It's not my theory. But there are scores of other things that are similarly out of whack.

TCSU - you're being brainwashed by whomever posted that bullshit line graph. Funny how you failed to reveal the source. You also have a fundamentally poor understanding of applied statistics for all the reasons BMW already cited.