Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Cookie Monster

Massive Voter Fraud

431 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RAyMO

 

1 minute ago, bee said:

the random sample that turned up 3% irregularity was not specific to duplicate ballots..

strange since the results in the twit are the same as the results in the duplicate case - I suspect the twit was an attempt to sow confusion and claim the sample was something it was not. Now that I look closer I see it was trump himself who twitted this bit,  quelle surprise. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
2 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

 

strange since the results in the twit are the same as the results in the duplicate case - I suspect the twit was an attempt to sow confusion and claim the sample was something it was not. Now that I look closer I see it was trump himself who twitted this bit,  quelle surprise. 

 

bolded - no they weren't -

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
11 minutes ago, bee said:

the random sample that turned up 3% irregularity was not specific to duplicate ballots..

from your link..

"But a review of more than 1,600 duplicate ballots "


https://ovi.csg.org/ballot-duplication-what-it-is-what-it-is-not-and-why-we-are-talking-about-it-in-2020/

 

 

 

And... which audit are you talking about?

The review of the duplicate ballots turned up nine errors and two of those should've went to Biden.  Nine errors is too small a sample to find bias in what modelled by a coin toss.

State wide audits demonstrate results within tolerances.

https://azsos.gov/election/2020-general-election-hand-count-results

It really raises questions about this purported three per cent discrepancy you're so eager to trust.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
3 minutes ago, bee said:

 

bolded - no they weren't -

 

from Darkhunters explanation of the duplicate sample:

"Of those 100 audited votes 2 were found to of had an error.  One had the vote for Trump flipped to Biden and another had a vote for Trump not filled in."

From the twit on these pages:

"The audit found: one Trump vote arbitrarily excluded.  Another Trump vote struck and then fraudulently added to Biden."

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
7 minutes ago, bee said:

 

just to make a general observation - on that point about margins of error...

if that is so..... then you would think that a candidate would need to have more than a 3% lead to win...?

 

I doubt it. Lots and of things have a margin of error. For most survey's it's typically 4-8% so it's lower than average if it is 3%. That changes the % level of confidence in said statistics though, gets complicated. 

Like I say though, I'm going from memory. Happy to stand corrected. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
27 minutes ago, quillius said:

the 3% is based on the swing...

to simplify, lets say 100 votes and its 50/50.

If 1 of those votes (1%) was to be flipped from one to the other (rather than being dismissed all together) then this would become 51/49 which is 2% swing.

Hence how 2 becomes 3 or as above 1 becomes 2...

Albeit the last post by duck has totally different numbers......so I am a tad lost but thought I would just explain how Bees 3% based on 2 votes was perfectly correct as far as 'maths' are concerned.


thanks.....

re the bolded above.... the numbers are different because it's a different 'investigation'....

the thing about flipped votes is that it's a double whammy isn't it.... one maneuver for a 2% shift...
that must be a favourite for the (alleged ^_^) fraudsters...

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
5 minutes ago, bee said:

e the bolded above.... the numbers are different because it's a different 'investigation'....

No its not its the same investigation - different sample sizes 

investigate 100, then investigate a further 1500

Arizona Republican Party lawsuit focuses on duplicate ballots at trial (azcentral.com)

Edited by RAyMO
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
4 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

from Darkhunters explanation of the duplicate sample:

"Of those 100 audited votes 2 were found to of had an error.  One had the vote for Trump flipped to Biden and another had a vote for Trump not filled in."

From the twit on these pages:

"The audit found: one Trump vote arbitrarily excluded.  Another Trump vote struck and then fraudulently added to Biden."

 

 

I see why you are pushing the point you are.... but the bolded above does not mean that those two examples were part of the specific study of duplicate ballots.... that were put forward by Golden Duck to try to steer away from the other investigation...

the numbers are different --- ie the numbers of ballots examined and / or intended to be examined... so it is going to be a different study...

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
1 minute ago, bee said:

 

I see why you are pushing the point you are.... but the bolded above does not mean that those two examples were part of the specific study of duplicate ballots.... that were put forward by Golden Duck to try to steer away from the other investigation...

the numbers are different --- ie the numbers of ballots examined and / or intended to be examined... so it is going to be a different study...

  

Its not a different story - its trump as usual not understanding what he has read - or not wanting to understand and deliberately sowing confusion. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

The dominion system is less likely to make errors than people.

After all, we know they have superior technology. Nobody can deny that.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8Gfuafb-cRkP49dVZRRQ

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
42 minutes ago, quillius said:

the 3% is based on the swing...

to simplify, lets say 100 votes and its 50/50.

If 1 of those votes (1%) was to be flipped from one to the other (rather than being dismissed all together) then this would become 51/49 which is 2% swing.

Hence how 2 becomes 3 or as above 1 becomes 2...

Albeit the last post by duck has totally different numbers......so I am a tad lost but thought I would just explain how Bees 3% based on 2 votes was perfectly correct as far as 'maths' are concerned.

Swing is only calculated on one party.  Your example, 50 to 51 is a one percent swing.  The swing is half the margin.

If there is a deleted Trump it sounds like there was a ballot deemed informal.

The best I can find is that this case is Ward v Constance.  I'd like to be corrected for the sake of clarity.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
42 minutes ago, quillius said:

as per my last post

Well thank you for explaining that, but in fact to my simple observation there is no need to complicate the simple math that should be used in that equation. Two votes = 2% no reason to make any more of it than it is, there is no statistical analysis necessary.

But thank you my friend, and I did actually understand that from the beginning, but like I said above I dont agree that making it more than it is, is important, when we are only talking about two votes!!!:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
48 minutes ago, bee said:

 

that is a look at duplicate ballots specifically and not part of the random ballot examination that I was quoting about and that turned up an initial discrepancy of 3%...in 100 ballots....

 

She said 3%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Image result for smile face rolling and laughing gifs

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
17 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

No its not its the same investigation - different sample sizes 

investigate 100, then investigate a further 1500

Arizona Republican Party lawsuit focuses on duplicate ballots at trial (azcentral.com)

 

no

:) 

according to your link there were two halves to the investigation... one duplicates and the other random (mail in ballots)...

quote...

Ward had initially asked Warner for permission to inspect thousands of Arizona ballots for irregularities. On Monday, he granted her team the opportunity to review a limited number: 100 mail-in ballot and 100 duplicate ballots.

you and the writer of the article must be focusing on the duplicate ballot half of the investigation... because the figures are more to your liking....  

I prefer the other numbers..... :D

and 'duplicate' ballots are a more narrow sample example... ?

 

Edited by bee
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

What im seeing with trumpers here is grasping at straws like a true believer that UFOs are aliens will make a ridiculous leap from, i saw a light in the sky i dont know what it really is so it must be aliens....no, it isnt.

Trumpers in desperation he lost will say oh look at this flawed vote it means the state will be flipped to trump and he will win...no, it doesnt.

I believe trump is pulling this to keep his worshippers sending his rich butt $$$ and they are stupid enough to fall for it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
6 minutes ago, bee said:

 

no

:) 

according to your link there were two halves to the investigation... one duplicates and the other random (mail in ballots)...

quote...

Ward had initially asked Warner for permission to inspect thousands of Arizona ballots for irregularities. On Monday, he granted her team the opportunity to review a limited number: 100 mail-in ballot and 100 duplicate ballots.

you and the writer of the article must be focusing on the duplicate ballot half of the investigation... because the figures are more to your liking....  

I prefer the other numbers..... :D

and 'duplicate' ballots are a more narrow sample example... ?

 

Bee, read DarkHunter's post that started this sub-thread.  They were referring to duplicate ballots.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius
9 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Swing is only calculated on one party.  Your example, 50 to 51 is a one percent swing.  The swing is half the margin.

If there is a deleted Trump it sounds like there was a ballot deemed informal.

The best I can find is that this case is Ward v Constance.  I'd like to be corrected for the sake of clarity.

 

I dont understand the 50-51?

if its 100 votes and it is 50 votes each (50% each) then one of the votes counted for A should have been for B instead then not only does B go to 51%, A also drops to 49%....you cannot go from 50/50 (100 votes) to 50-51?

IF there is deleted votes then this changes the total and would have a differing effect on %

ie....100 votes 50/50. then 1 is deleted and 1 is swung from A to B.....this the equates to A being 48 out of 99 and B is 51 out of 99.....the % change would be slightly bigger than 2% --- ie A = 48.48%  B = 51.52% so the swing is nearly 3%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius
13 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Well thank you for explaining that, but in fact to my simple observation there is no need to complicate the simple math that should be used in that equation. Two votes = 2% no reason to make any more of it than it is, there is no statistical analysis necessary.

But thank you my friend, and I did actually understand that from the beginning, but like I said above I dont agree that making it more than it is, is important, when we are only talking about two votes!!!:D

its not complicating the simple math and it remains simple. if A gets one of Bs votes then the swing is 2 not 1....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
9 minutes ago, quillius said:

its not complicating the simple math and it remains simple. if A gets one of Bs votes then the swing is 2 not 1....

Like I said, there is no need for a statistical analysis, the only the reason adding 1% to those figures makes is the single increase of a single percentage!!:wacko: Which actually makes absolutely no difference at all!!!!:wacko::) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Bee, read DarkHunter's post that started this sub-thread.  They were referring to duplicate ballots.

 

The first post @DarkHunter wrote about it referred to duplicate ballots - the next one wasn't so specific.... and the link he provided said this...

"But Judge Randall Warner capped at 200 the number of ballots Arizona GOP Chair Kelli Ward and her team can examine, arguing the limited sample should be "enough to let us know if there's a red flag" when he reviews the results at trial Thursday."

so we are back to 100 sample duplicate ballots... and 100 mail in ballots....

2 different (halves of) an investigation throwing up different numbers, different percentages...

...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius
Just now, Manwon Lender said:

Like I said, there is no need for a statistical analysis, the only the reason adding 1% to those figures makes is the single increase of a single percentage!!:wacko: Which actually makes absolutely no difference at all!!!!:wacko::) 

no one is doing statistical analysis....

its simple, I was merely pointing out (after you asked) why Bee quoted 3% swing rather than 2. I am not arguing about what difference it makes to the election or whether the data that derive those figures is correct or not.

I was pointing out that if one vote goes from one party to the other then the swing is 2 votes not 1.

not sure what part you are struggling to grasp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
2 minutes ago, quillius said:

I dont understand the 50-51?

if its 100 votes and it is 50 votes each (50% each) then one of the votes counted for A should have been for B instead then not only does B go to 51%, A also drops to 49%....you cannot go from 50/50 (100 votes) to 50-51?

IF there is deleted votes then this changes the total and would have a differing effect on %

ie....100 votes 50/50. then 1 is deleted and 1 is swung from A to B.....this the equates to A being 48 out of 99 and B is 51 out of 99.....the % change would be slightly bigger than 2% --- ie A = 48.48%  B = 51.52% so the swing is nearly 3%

I never said 50-51

You're confusing margin with swing. 

If a party goes from 50 to 51 that's a one per cent swing.  In a two horse race the one per cent away means the other candidate goes From 50 to 49.

We don't know the starting distribution of the sample.  So in this case I will say the relative margin is +3 to Trump.  So in a hypothetical subsequent election the Biden proxy need a 1.5 per cent swing to get back to the pre audit results.  I understand that an informal was flipped to Trump.

(Assuming: Trump% + Biden% + Informal% = 100%)

Swing is half of the margin, in a two horse race.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
4 minutes ago, bee said:

 

The first post @DarkHunter wrote about it referred to duplicate ballots - the next one wasn't so specific.... and the link he provided said this...

"But Judge Randall Warner capped at 200 the number of ballots Arizona GOP Chair Kelli Ward and her team can examine, arguing the limited sample should be "enough to let us know if there's a red flag" when he reviews the results at trial Thursday."

so we are back to 100 sample duplicate ballots... and 100 mail in ballots....

2 different (halves of) an investigation throwing up different numbers, different percentages...

...

 

No Bee, a link in Darkhunter's p142 includes the following:

Quote

The first inspection of 100 duplicate ballots found one was switched from Trump to President-elect Joe Biden. Another contained an overvote, eliminating a vote intended for Trump. 

Hence Bats' "OMG 2 VOTES" exclamation.

That's where you chimed in with an ambiguous and uncorroborated tweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius
1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

I never said 50-51

You're confusing margin with swing. 

If a party goes from 50 to 51 that's a one per cent swing.  In a two horse race the one per cent away means the other candidate goes From 50 to 49.

We don't know the starting distribution of the sample.  So in this case I will say the relative margin is +3 to Trump.  So in a hypothetical subsequent election the Biden proxy need a 1.5 per cent swing to get back to the pre audit results.  I understand that an informal was flipped to Trump.

(Assuming: Trump% + Biden% + Informal% = 100%)

Swing is half of the margin, in a two horse race.

ok I understand your point now.

I am using the term 'swing' as the margin. albeit using the term swing as a 'swing' in the overall as opposed to restricted to one party.

so In essence yes its a 1 vote swing to the BUT a 2 vote swing in the overall vote when comparing party A v party B. 

But thanks for clarifying, makes perfect sense.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
7 hours ago, Bavarian Raven said:

But they weren't suppose to be there during that time period. Period. The fact they were, and without observation is very suspect imho.

Quite true given the claims that the Dominion software program was supposed to have done the cheating for them... <sarcasm>

But seriously- you know that the observers are a courtesy and not required for an election because we have multiple back-ups and redundancies to prevent fraud?  Like CCTV which merely recorded them doing the same thing that they were doing all day in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.