Election Litigation Status

[Chap]

I had a Trumper tell me that we should be concerned about the "statistical anomalies" of the election.

From the references to such 'anomalies' that have been cited on this board, they just seem to have been ways of dressing up statements that amount to no more than "There is no way I can believe that Trump lost the election. The rallies were so HUUGE."

[Res Ipsa]

I had a Trumper tell me that we should be concerned about the "statistical anomalies" of the election. I did a search and only popped up highly-biased-looking links. Have any of you seen anything nonpartisan and credible on the subject? Thanks

Click on Doc's signature. There are some in there. I've seen dozens of people take one or more of these apart. When they are taken in context, i.e., what should we actually expect to find in election results, they fall to pieces. Some of them are hard for the average person to decipher because people who should know better wrap them with statistical jargon that sounds impressive, but is actually BS.

Here is how I handle this. First, ask them "what statistical anomalies?" Make them give you examples. If they involve statistics, ask them to explain how they know that the statistical technique was applied correctly. Finally, ask them how they know its an anomaly. That's the key step. For example, a big dump of votes for Biden in the middle of the night may superficially appear to be a anomaly, but in context -- reporting of absentee ballot votes in a state that counted them after counting live votes form a heavily democratic county -- it's an expected event, not an anomaly. Most of these guys use "anomaly" to mean "looks funny to me." And "Looks funny to me" is not evidence.

If you can't figure out yourself why a specific claim is not an anomaly, google the specifics or post it here.

[Meadowchik]

I had a Trumper tell me that we should be concerned about the "statistical anomalies" of the election. I did a search and only popped up highly-biased-looking links. Have any of you seen anything nonpartisan and credible on the subject? Thanks

Click on Doc's signature. There are some in there. I've seen dozens of people take one or more of these apart. When they are taken in context, i.e., what should we actually expect to find in election results, they fall to pieces. Some of them are hard for the average person to decipher because people who should know better wrap them with statistical jargon that sounds impressive, but is actually BS.

Here is how I handle this. First, ask them "what statistical anomalies?" Make them give you examples. If they involve statistics, ask them to explain how they know that the statistical technique was applied correctly. Finally, ask them how they know its an anomaly. That's the key step. For example, a big dump of votes for Biden in the middle of the night may superficially appear to be a anomaly, but in context -- reporting of absentee ballot votes in a state that counted them after counting live votes form a heavily democratic county -- it's an expected event, not an anomaly. Most of these guys use "anomaly" to mean "looks funny to me." And "Looks funny to me" is not evidence.

If you can't figure out yourself why a specific claim is not an anomaly, google the specifics or post it here.

Yes, I did ask, but there was no response. But I am trying to be aware of personal blindspots so I don't want to wait for them to give me links. I can read the stats though, thanks

[Gadianton]

I had a Trumper tell me that we should be concerned about the "statistical anomalies" of the election.

There have been several examples cited, and what they all have in common is the failure to make any sort of logical sense in a fraud scenario, let alone is there actual evidence linking them to fraud.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose you are a drug lord and have 250 million in cash that you need to launder, and you hire an Ozark's level guy to churn that money for you. The whole point is to sneak in a little money here and there and hope that no "statistical anomalies" show up that tip off auditors.

Now suppose you are a drug lord, and you hire a Ozark's level guy to launder $11,780. What are the odds he can pull it off without leaving a trail?

Suppose that you either a) already have the means to evade the system and create thousands or tens of thousands of fake ballots or b) you have malicious software embedded within the Dominion voting machine.

If you're already smart enough and capable enough to pull off all of that, don't you think you can execute the fraud in such a way that it doesn't leave a trail of cookie crumbs? We're doing the fraud in swing states where it's going to be very close, and so we don't need a whole lot of fabrication. I'm sure that a decent A.I. coder could rig Dominion to keep track of Trump and Biden votes, and sneak in one or two more for Biden every time it processes a clump (in the already unrealistic world that Ajax and subs live in, that is), and not suddenly add in a huge and suspicious number at one point in time!

The same for ballots. After you've filled your garage with fake Biden ballots, why would you put them all in 5 vans that drive out to 5 states to unload their cargo during the same hours to produce a "statistical anomaly" between the hours of 2 and 6 AM (or something like that) when you could have been mailing them in small clumps from various locations for months?

One of the examples subs gave, that he was 100% sure constituted fraud was this: This year in some state for online voting registration, several thousand voters were registered with null birthday dates, which was 10 or 20 times more than in previous years. Hello? Fraud? Well, apply the principle above to this scenario. If you can register fake voters and evade checks for social security numbers and things like that, why wouldn't you just make up random birthdays, rather than make it suspicious by putting in null dates?

But as it happens, as I've worked in IT for financial companies; what you're looking at is a software defect. Obviously, the software platform this year had a bug that allowed users to register without forcing them to input their birthday date before they submitted. After a few days, somebody notices and then it gets fixed, but it will affect a bunch of people until then.

[Res Ipsa]

If you know the person, Meadowchick, it can be a teaching opportunity. With some people, you can take an approach of "well, this guy neither of us knows says this. Let's try to figure out whether he's right." It can take lots of patience and biting one's tongue, but sometimes just going through the process of skepticism helps people see how it works.

[Lem]

...Most of these guys use "anomaly" to mean "looks funny to me." And "Looks funny to me" is not evidence....

I had the same experience with the phrase "it's just common sense," when I asked how they know all news outlets publish fake news.

[Res Ipsa]

I had a Trumper tell me that we should be concerned about the "statistical anomalies" of the election.

There have been several examples cited, and what they all have in common is the failure to make any sort of logical sense in a fraud scenario, let alone is there actual evidence linking them to fraud.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose you are a drug lord and have 250 million in cash that you need to launder, and you hire an Ozark's level guy to churn that money for you. The whole point is to sneak in a little money here and there and hope that no "statistical anomalies" show up that tip off auditors.

Now suppose you are a drug lord, and you hire a Ozark's level guy to launder $11,780. What are the odds he can pull it off without leaving a trail?

Suppose that you either a) already have the means to evade the system and create thousands or tens of thousands of fake ballots or b) you have malicious software embedded within the Dominion voting machine.

If you're already smart enough and capable enough to pull off all of that, don't you think you can execute the fraud in such a way that it doesn't leave a trail of cookie crumbs? We're doing the fraud in swing states where it's going to be very close, and so we don't need a whole lot of fabrication. I'm sure that a decent A.I. coder could rig Dominion to keep track of Trump and Biden votes, and sneak in one or two more for Biden every time it processes a clump (in the already unrealistic world that Ajax and subs live in, that is), and not suddenly add in a huge and suspicious number at one point in time!

The same for ballots. After you've filled your garage with fake Biden ballots, why would you put them all in 5 vans that drive out to 5 states to unload their cargo during the same hours to produce a "statistical anomaly" between the hours of 2 and 6 AM (or something like that) when you could have been mailing them in small clumps from various locations for months?

One of the examples subs gave, that he was 100% sure constituted fraud was this: This year in some state for online voting registration, several thousand voters were registered with null birthday dates, which was 10 or 20 times more than in previous years. Hello? Fraud? Well, apply the principle above to this scenario. If you can register fake voters and evade checks for social security numbers and things like that, why wouldn't you just make up random birthdays, rather than make it suspicious by putting in null dates?

But as it happens, as I've worked in IT for financial companies; what you're looking at is a software defect. Obviously, the software platform this year had a bug that allowed users to register without forcing them to input their birthday date before they submitted. After a few days, somebody notices and then it gets fixed, but it will affect a bunch of people until then.

Dean Robbers, one point. Using "why would they be so stupid to do it this way" is, in my opinion, an unreliable rule of thumb. With hindsight, one can always spot mistakes. In fact, making mistakes is often how fraudsters get caught.

[Res Ipsa]

...Most of these guys use "anomaly" to mean "looks funny to me." And "Looks funny to me" is not evidence....

I had the same experience with the phrase "it's just common sense," when I asked how they know all news outlets publish fake news.

Yeah, it's hard because most people don't want to do the actual work that skepticism requires. There's an organization called the News Literacy Project that is putting out some good materials and exercises that teach how to evaluate news reports.

[Chap]

After you've filled your garage with fake Biden ballots, why would you put them all in 5 vans that drive out to 5 states to unload their cargo during the same hours to produce a "statistical anomaly" between the hours of 2 and 6 AM (or something like that) when you could have been mailing them in small clumps from various locations for months?

PREEEcisely. The adversary is both fiendishly evil (successfully conceals existence of international network of cannibal satanist pedophiles at highest national levels), but also as thick as two short planks, in that they make easily detectable errors like delivering all the ballots at once, heaved out of vans in large bundles, and every one for Biden. Oh, and their cunning plan forgot to ensure that the Democrats didn't lose any seats in the House.

Fercrissakes already, as they say in some places, I am led to believe.

[Meadowchik]

If you know the person, Meadowchick, it can be a teaching opportunity. With some people, you can take an approach of "well, this guy neither of us knows says this. Let's try to figure out whether he's right." It can take lots of patience and biting one's tongue, but sometimes just going through the process of skepticism helps people see how it works.

It looks like this particular person is ghosting the conversation. But yes this is the tac I was planning to take.

They had already shown a news article with a timestamp of Wednesday morning describing the Wednesday afternoon events, saying it was proof of a Deep State-orchestrated false flag. I found the screenshotted article and posted the link, and screenshotted the link itself, which had a different title appropriate to the morning events. I explained that obviously this is probably just from the editors replacing the original article with the new updates from the ongoing situation.