General Question

luigirovatti's avatar

Does the following quote describe mathematical evidence the election was stolen from Trump?

Asked by luigirovatti (2373points) November 11th, 2020
18 responses
“Great Question” (0points)

(N.B. The following is a quote, nothing more. I merely posted it here to be open to debate, but that’s all. I won’t consider myself responsible for what is written down below. If you consider what’s written down here mine, don’t read any further as I won’t take the blame for any inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies that might be present. If you have critics, if constructive, obviously I’ll listen to them, and maybe reply, but that’s all.)

In both Michigan and Wisconsin, several vote dumps occurred at approximately 4am on Wednesday morning, which showed that Joe Biden received almost 100 percent of the votes. President Trump was leading by hundreds of thousands of votes in both states as America went to sleep, and turnout in the state of Wisconsin seems to be particularly impossible.

The voter turnout in Wisconsin apparently annihilated the historical record of 66.8% by almost 30 percentage points.

Statistical analysts have noted that this 5-point deviation was not only a statistical improbability, but a virtual statistical impossibility.

The odds of this occurring are 0.00000189% or 1 in 52,910,052.

Some claim that this is because of same-day registration, however 20 other states allow same-day registration, and results within those states were not close to reaching a turnout this unprecedented. Additionally, it is highly dubious that hundreds of wards suddenly doubled their voter registration in a single election year.

With absentee ballots, former vice-president Joe Biden was also 60 points in Pennsylvania and almost 40 points in Michigan According to the New York Times. Comparably, Biden was only up single digits in absentee voting in most other battleground states.

Voter tallies from Michigan and Wisconsin spiked at around 6 a.m. in favor of Biden, according to graphs of live tallies posted by FiveThirtyEight (https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2020-election-results-coverage/).

Some statistically savvy observers noticed other mathematical flaws, as random numbers in statistics should follow a pattern in their distribution. (https://www.twitter.com/toad_spotted/status/1324377988499210240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1324377988499210240%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sott.net%2Fembed%2FXxN2veGNu0uEoSpWRkUyahPOGJk) (https://www.twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1325193658170134531?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1325193658170134531%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sott.net%2Fembed%2FpXT2j3aOewLlGPKd6HvPxFOyb3g)

Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0

Answers

ragingloli's avatar

This article should answer your question:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-biden-vote-spikes-mi-wi-idUSKBN27L2RL

Here is a mathematician’s video debunking, the ‘twitter statistician’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78.

doyendroll's avatar

No. “Some statistically savvy observers noticed other mathematical flaws, as random numbers in statistics should follow a pattern in their distribution.”

Presumably other “statistically savvy observers” counselled the others by noting that randomness does not follow patterns.

dabbler's avatar

What that tells us is that sometimes statistics don’t work.
The model does not reflect reality if the model says what actually happened is impossible.

Irukandji's avatar

Trump: Don’t vote by mail!
Biden: Please vote by mail!
Trump: Why are all the mail ballots for Biden? Seems suspicious!!!

We can’t really be surprised that the mail ballots favored Biden when he was telling people to vote by mail while Trump was denigrating mail voting at every opportunity. But as @ragingloli‘s article points out, it is not true that Biden received all the votes in the overnight dump. And its source for that claim—FiveThirtyEight—is the same as the quote’s source for the spikes.

The quote also misrepresents how odds work. The odds of any specific thing are almost always low (the odds of you being born rather than someone else is astronomically small), which is why we are usually more interested in the odds of a more general thing happening (such as the odds of your mother getting pregnant and carrying the pregnancy to term, regardless of whether the person born was you or some possible alternative).

Its turnout numbers are also wrong. First of all, it claims that “voter turnout in Wisconsin apparently annihilated the historical record of 66.8% by almost 30 percentage points,” Then it refers to a “5-point deviation.” Second, here are the Wisconsin voter turnout numbers for the past six presidential elections (from this article):

2000: 67%
2004: 72.9%
2008: 69.2%
2012: 70.4%
2016: 67.3%
2020: 72.3%

The two obvious takeaways are that the historical record was not 66.8%, and that 2020 isn’t even the highest turnout in recent elections (the turnout in 2004 was higher). So turnout was not unprecedented, which means we don’t even have to deal with the bullshit that the quote writer tries to hang on that false claim.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

“The voter turnout in Wisconsin apparently annihilated the historical record of 66.8% by almost 30 percentage points.”

Whoever wrote that is a liar. Anyone who believes it is lacking the critical thinking skills to make a rational argument.

Wisconsin turnout was up 12%
2020 – 3,292,267
2106 – 2,937,728

I’m not going to bother debunking anything more. The claims are made in bad faith.

There is no credible evidence of voter fraud. It is a cynical dangerous lie from people who don’t believe in democracy.

cookieman's avatar

Relevant: New York Times

The Times Called Officials in Every State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud

The president and his allies have baselessly claimed that rampant voter fraud stole victory from him. Officials contacted by The Times said that there were no irregularities that affected the outcome.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Maybe. Seems to me, the Reps just didn’t have the numbers to win. It doesn’t surprise me as much as I thought it would, he was just too much for a lot of people to vote for.

At the same time, Republicans succeeded in finding and turning out unprecedented numbers of voters in more conservative rural and exurban parts of the country. That effort may not have been enough to save Trump’s reelection — the final outcome may not be known for several more days — but it did successfully stop the Democrats from expanding their control of state legislatures, blocked their shot at widening their majority in the House and probably saved the Republicans’ Senate majority.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-11-04/2020-election-trump-biden-count-analysis

stanleybmanly's avatar

No That’s the wrong question. The right question is about whether the claim is legitimate. Anonymous “statistical analysts” along with “odds” snatched from thin air without explanation should be viewed for what they are worth. You

ragingloli's avatar

This kind of misinformation is also extremely difficult to combat.
The propagandists and their minions can just throw this nonsense out in the world, their followers gobble it up without any skepticism whatsoever, and the lies then spread like wildfire.
Mean while, anyone bothering to look more deeply into the matter and debunks it, is drowned out by the noise of the faithful lemmings, or is accused of lying themselves, and being part of the conspiracy.

There was this recent case of a postal worker, who claimed that a supervisor instructed employees to tamper with ballots. Even signed an “affidavit”. Of course this was promptly snatched up the republicans and then circulated among their sheeples.

Then the guy admitted that he made it all up
But by that point, the damage is irreversible. Believers will either never hear about his retraction, or they will spiral further down the conspiracy rabbit hole by claiming that “the deep state got to him.”

KNOWITALL's avatar

@ragingloli To be fair, it’s not taken as ‘misinformation’ when you have a signed affidavit by a witness. Those are legal documents.

Even your own article is all over the place with whether he recanted or not, a youtube video saying he did not recant, and involved USPS internal investigation. So it still sounds convoluted and unproven to be true or false.

Listen, I accept Biden won, but Reps can’t help liars purporting to be on their team, anymore than you can control the Jussie Smollett’s in yours.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Listen, I accept Biden won, but Reps can’t help liars purporting to be on their team, anymore than you can control the Jussie Smollett’s in yours

Wow. That’s a useless false equivalence. Jussie Smollett is an actor with no connection to politics. I guess “black” and “he is a villain to conservatives” make him a Democratic icon in your mind.

The liars you’re referring to include virtually every elected Republican, including (especially) the President. Portraying Republicans as helpless victims isn’t even remotely close to reality.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

So? Jussie Smollet is just an actor. He wasn’t lying to get Biden elected. He wasn’t spreading lies about non-existent voter fraud.

He could be a murderer and it would have no relation to the Republican disinformation campaign.

The president is lying and you’re crying, “but whatabout Jussie Smollet!!” Think about that.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Call_Me_Jay Well I don’t how to break it to you but a signed affidavit is recognized in a court of law. If it’s false and retracted, that’s on the liar, not Trump.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

@KNOWITALL The question was whether an easily disproved accusation was evidence. Your answer was “maybe”.

That says it all. You can stop typing.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@call_me Your delusions do not negate a legal document.
Nothing here has disproven the affidavit, @ragingloli at least posted an accurate article that was undecided.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

@KNOWITALL I am referring to the math in the question, not the affidavit you want to focus on.

Which is funny in itself. It regards a small number of votes that make no difference, and it is dubious. But your faith in Dear Leader will not be shaken.

Response moderated (Writing Standards)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

Mobile | Desktop


Send Feedback   

`