WELCOME TO RIVER DAVES PLACE

Vote Pattern Analysis

2FORCEFULL

2FORCEFULL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
28,989
Reaction score
17,745
here's what I see,... probley wrong,.. but doesn't mean it was fraud in the count..

more walk in's voted for trump,... and more mail in's voted for biden.. if there is or not fraud there would be in the ballots...it is possible that ever single voter mail in voted for biden... the areas that this happened were heavy biden suppoters... ballot fraud, while it raises an eyebrow when looking... doesn't mean that mail ins didn't really vote for biden....whats likely/unlikely is gonna be determined by the accual vote count...it doesn't matter how many times you count../. it will be close to the same....so,... in order to find the real amount of fraud, or it's non existence ...each and every ballot must be looked at..

it's gonna be real hard for states to admit fraud.... they will fight the investigation all the way to the end..
 
WhatExit?

WhatExit?

Well-Known Inmate #'s 2584 & 20161
Joined
Jul 19, 2017
Messages
15,539
Reaction score
33,004
from the report:

We further find that if these updates were only more extreme than 99% of all updates nationally in terms of their deviation from this generally-observed pattern, that, holding all else equal, Joe Biden may very well have lost the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, and that he would have 42 fewer Electoral votes — putting Biden below the number required to win the Presidency. Either way, it is indisputable that his margin of victory in these three states relies on four most anomalous vote updates identified by the metric developed in this report.

We once again note that this analysis is largely restricted to four individual vote updates out of a sample of nearly 9,000. This report by no means suggests stopping investigations in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, or elsewhere; it is merely that these four key ballot updates are both profoundly anomalous with respect to a metric which removes any component of different states having different partisan leanings or a different number of voters.

Furthermore, this analysis does not require that we regard the final vote totals in any of these states (or counties thereof) as suspicious, nor, critically, does it require that we accept that the observed data should follow any particular distribution a priori. We merely show that the data, adjusted appropriately to remove differences in size and political leaning between states, does follow a certain pattern, and that four key vote updates deviate profoundly from that pattern.

It is our belief that the extraordinarily anomalous nature of the studied vote updates here, combined with the staggering political implications, demands immediate and thorough investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top