Debate Now MIT Analysis of Voting Machine "Fraud" Analysis Thread.

[flacaltenn]

This is a STRUCTURED DEBATE thread.. I get to pick 2 rules in addition to the Zone2 regular board rules.. Here they are:

1) Discussion in this thread is ONLY about the posted analysis from Dr Shiva at MIT.. If you're not willing to watch the presentation, understand his definitions, analyze his results - dont bother posting here. I assume just a dozen or so USMB members will make that effort.. Others will be thread banned and/or warned.

2) Not the place to go into gory detail about the IMPLICATIONS of finding systemic voting machines in America.. Just jumping the gun BEFORE any evidence certain.. We all understand that FINDING systemic voting machine issues is an Armageddon type situation and a potential nation ending disaster,.. THIS THREAD is for pure analysis of ONE THEORY...

This presentation by the MIT folks was the FIRST AND ONLY assertion of machine voting issues that used ACTUAL open sourced election data. And it's a repeatable experiment.. Those are the kind of assumptions that ultimately matter. It's gotten SCADS of attention in the MMedia and SoshMedia in the past 4 or 5 days.. And I initially thought something was proven here.. After watching the vid several times and portions MANY times - trying to understand his variable definitions and assumptions -- I'm having doubts at what he's proven here.

My current thinking is that because of the way HE CHOOSE his variables and the ASSUMPTIONS that he made -- that ALL he's really proven here is that "partisans in states that allow "STRAIGHT PARTISAN" voting options -- prefer that method over checking boxes on a "normal" full ballot.. I'll flesh out that analysis later on..

But simply -- Straight party voting (SPV) preference IS prefered by partisans over the effort of splitting votes on a normal ballot.. His SCATTERPLOTS use Republican SPV (RSPV) as a measure of the PARTISIANSHIP of that precinct on the Xaxis.. But that is not the partisan SPLIT in that precinct. His Y axis takes "Other Votes for Trump" (OVT) in that district where the voters choose NOT to SPV.. He Subtracts OVT - RSPV to use on that axis,

Given that problem definition -- The slope of ANYTHING plotted in that space is -- (OVT - RSPV) / RSPV..

ALL THAT IS a "proof" that partisans of ANY PARTY prefer straight party line voting.. A "Duhh" moment.. And the negative slope on all his scattergrams just shows that "open ballot voting" drops off the more a district leans Republican.

My contention is -- that if he ran the SAME TEST on DEMOCRATS -- you'd get the same results..

I'm NOT done yet. Still arguing with my wife and biz partner. We both have EXTENSIVE work and publications in signal and image processing data analysis and can handle "HSchool Algebra 2" math and graphing -- which is what this exercise really is.. It's just REALLY TRICKY to set up the variables and definitions. After that, it's simple statistical graph analysis.

Welcome all folks that are capable of reviewing this.. If you dont know what a scatterplot is or independent/dependent variables on a graph -- please dont even try.. There's DOZENS of OTHER threads on this..

The presentation is at the link below and COULD (given the SoshMedia MMedia tyrants) disappear tonight from the web.. So be quick to watch it and take notes if you want to join in..




EDIT: I dithered a lot here in thread because his definitions and word use were NOT precise. So if you just want the "nut in the avocado" here --- skip to post 76.. And then come back and read thru the thread.

 

[flacaltenn]

westwall Shelzin Turtlesoup -- Just off the top of my head who might be willing to put in the effort to review this...

 

[RodISHI]

I watched it a few days ago. Between that the noticeable swap on CNN's screen and the election rigging interview with Russell Ramsland on their in depth investigation, along with the sudden closure to counting I am convinced.

 

[Shelzin]

I'm willing... But I won't put in the hour until the weekend. I'm flyby during the week.

Edit: I'll throw it in the background and listen... Likely won't add anything until the weekend though. I'll watch it again with more attention the second go around.

 

[flacaltenn]

I watched it a few days ago. Between that the noticeable swap on CNN's screen and the election rigging interview with Russell Ramsland on their in depth investigation, along with the sudden closure to counting I am convinced.

Please respect the rules of this Structured Debate thread laid out in the OPost.. Discussion is SOLELY about "peer reviewing/vetting/analyzing the presentations from Dr. Ayyaduri.. All the other election stuff is adequately covered elsewhere on USMB...

 

[colfax_m]

The idea that this is somehow proof of election fraud is laughable in my mind.

His analysis splits the electorate up into two groups. One group votes straight ticket and one votes for each candidate individually. His assumption is that people who vote straight ticket and people who vote for each candidate individually should vote for Trump at equal rates.

This assumption is completely untested and unfounded. He barely tries to defend it. He spends no time attempting to demonstrate this is what we should assume is correct. There's no normal comparison group. Nothing. We are just supposed to believe it's true and use this as a basis for saying that votes were shifted.

I think, instead, he's just demonstrating human nature.

I think it's pretty obvious that the people who vote straight ticket are more partisan than those who do not. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans, they're partisan. That means those in the middle are more likely to be swing voters. I think that swing voters are less likely to vote heavily one way over the other, their vote is more evenly distributed between Biden and Trump.

Therefore, when a precinct is highly partisan Republican, when a precinct has a high percentage of people voting straight party ticket Republican, the swing voters are unlikely to be equally heavily Republican and vice versa. This gives the exact same outcome as his data without the need for fraud.

 

[HaShev]

Has anyone done a forensic of the program itself to see if the code was written to create fraud?
Then if so, get coders or execs to talk who ordered it and was Pelosi or any agent of a politician involved in the scheme, including CIA agents or FBI and were they threatened or compromised not to talk?

 

[toobfreak]

This is a STRUCTURED DEBATE thread.. I get to pick 2 rules in addition to the Zone2 regular board rules.. Here they are:

1) Discussion in this thread is ONLY about the posted analysis from Dr Shiva at MIT.. If you're not willing to watch the presentation, understand his definitions, analyze his results - dont bother posting here. I assume just a dozen or so USMB members will make that effort.. Others will be thread banned and/or warned.

2) Not the place to go into gory detail about the IMPLICATIONS of finding systemic voting machines in America.. Just jumping the gun BEFORE any evidence certain.. We all understand that FINDING systemic voting machine issues is an Armageddon type situation and a potential nation ending disaster,.. THIS THREAD is for pure analysis of ONE THEORY...

This presentation by the MIT folks was the FIRST AND ONLY assertion of machine voting issues that used ACTUAL open sourced election data. And it's a repeatable experiment.. Those are the kind of assumptions that ultimately matter. It's gotten SCADS of attention in the MMedia and SoshMedia in the past 4 or 5 days.. And I initially thought something was proven here.. After watching the vid several times and portions MANY times - trying to understand his variable definitions and assumptions -- I'm having doubts at what he's proven here.

My current thinking is that because of the way HE CHOOSE his variables and the ASSUMPTIONS that he made -- that ALL he's really proven here is that "partisans in states that allow "STRAIGHT PARTISAN" voting options -- prefer that method over checking boxes on a "normal" full ballot.. I'll flesh out that analysis later on..

But simply -- Straight party voting (SPV) preference IS prefered by partisans over the effort of splitting votes on a normal ballot.. His SCATTERPLOTS use Republican SPV (RSPV) as a measure of the PARTISIANSHIP of that precinct on the Xaxis.. But that is not the partisan SPLIT in that precinct. His Y axis takes "Other Votes for Trump" (OVT) in that district where the voters choose NOT to SPV.. He Subtracts OVT - RSPV to use on that axis,

Given that problem definition -- The slope of ANYTHING plotted in that space is -- (OVT - RSPV) / RSPV..

ALL THAT IS a "proof" that partisans of ANY PARTY prefer straight party line voting.. A "Duhh" moment.. And the negative slope on all his scattergrams just shows that "open ballot voting" drops off the more a district leans Republican.

My contention is -- that if he ran the SAME TEST on DEMOCRATS -- you'd get the same results..

I'm NOT done yet. Still arguing with my wife and biz partner. We both have EXTENSIVE work and publications in signal and image processing data analysis and can handle "HSchool Algebra 2" math and graphing -- which is what this exercise really is.. It's just REALLY TRICKY to set up the variables and definitions. After that, it's simple statistical graph analysis.

Welcome all folks that are capable of reviewing this.. If you dont know what a scatterplot is or independent/dependent variables on a graph -- please dont even try.. There's DOZENS of OTHER threads on this..

The presentation is at the link below and COULD (given the SoshMedia MMedia tyrants) disappear tonight from the web.. So be quick to watch it and take notes if you want to join in..

Well, Flacc, I delayed my dinner to watch this, I didn't take any notes, am only watching it once, thought it pretty straightforward, but I did save a few bits of it just in case it is deleted, passed the link onto some other friends of mine, and I'm not going into any detail right now, I'm going to eat, rest and get back to this later, and I have a few problems and questions about some of the basic assumptions behind it all, but I agree very much with the conclusions presented by the two people mainly involved.

More later.

 

[toobfreak]

Has anyone done a forensic of the program itself to see if the code was written to create fraud?
Then if so, get coders or execs to talk who ordered it and was Pelosi or any agent of a politician involved in the scheme, including CIA agents or FBI and were they threatened or compromised not to talk?

If you watch the video, the Dominion software is not open code so not available for analysis.

 

[Oddball]

I watched it.....Can scrape by the algebra 2....But I could progress no further.

Imagine the disappointment when my astronaut application got rejected.

 

[HaShev]

Has anyone done a forensic of the program itself to see if the code was written to create fraud?
Then if so, get coders or execs to talk who ordered it and was Pelosi or any agent of a politician involved in the scheme, including CIA agents or FBI and were they threatened or compromised not to talk?

If you watch the video, the Dominion software is not open code so not available for analysis.

So could they court order the company or question the code and program creators to get them to talk?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The idea that this is somehow proof of election fraud is laughable in my mind.

His analysis splits the electorate up into two groups. One group votes straight ticket and one votes for each candidate individually. His assumption is that people who vote straight ticket and people who vote for each candidate individually should vote for Trump at equal rates.

This assumption is completely untested and unfounded. He barely tries to defend it. He spends no time attempting to demonstrate this is what we should assume is correct. There's no normal comparison group. Nothing. We are just supposed to believe it's true and use this as a basis for saying that votes were shifted.

I think, instead, he's just demonstrating human nature.

I think it's pretty obvious that the people who vote straight ticket are more partisan than those who do not. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans, they're partisan. That means those in the middle are more likely to be swing voters. I think that swing voters are less likely to vote heavily one way over the other, their vote is more evenly distributed between Biden and Trump.

Therefore, when a precinct is highly partisan Republican, when a precinct has a high percentage of people voting straight party ticket Republican, the swing voters are unlikely to be equally heavily Republican and vice versa. This gives the exact same outcome as his data without the need for fraud.

democrats will 99.99% of the time vote democrat especially if they are voting for president

 

[Oddball]

The idea that this is somehow proof of election fraud is laughable in my mind.

His analysis splits the electorate up into two groups. One group votes straight ticket and one votes for each candidate individually. His assumption is that people who vote straight ticket and people who vote for each candidate individually should vote for Trump at equal rates.

This assumption is completely untested and unfounded. He barely tries to defend it. He spends no time attempting to demonstrate this is what we should assume is correct. There's no normal comparison group. Nothing. We are just supposed to believe it's true and use this as a basis for saying that votes were shifted.

I think, instead, he's just demonstrating human nature.

I think it's pretty obvious that the people who vote straight ticket are more partisan than those who do not. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans, they're partisan. That means those in the middle are more likely to be swing voters. I think that swing voters are less likely to vote heavily one way over the other, their vote is more evenly distributed between Biden and Trump.

Therefore, when a precinct is highly partisan Republican, when a precinct has a high percentage of people voting straight party ticket Republican, the swing voters are unlikely to be equally heavily Republican and vice versa. This gives the exact same outcome as his data without the need for fraud.

democrats will 99.99% of the time vote democrat especially if they are voting for president

Speaking of laughable statistics, what are the chances that 100% of "irregularities" fall on one, and only one, direction?

 

[colfax_m]

The idea that this is somehow proof of election fraud is laughable in my mind.

His analysis splits the electorate up into two groups. One group votes straight ticket and one votes for each candidate individually. His assumption is that people who vote straight ticket and people who vote for each candidate individually should vote for Trump at equal rates.

This assumption is completely untested and unfounded. He barely tries to defend it. He spends no time attempting to demonstrate this is what we should assume is correct. There's no normal comparison group. Nothing. We are just supposed to believe it's true and use this as a basis for saying that votes were shifted.

I think, instead, he's just demonstrating human nature.

I think it's pretty obvious that the people who vote straight ticket are more partisan than those who do not. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans, they're partisan. That means those in the middle are more likely to be swing voters. I think that swing voters are less likely to vote heavily one way over the other, their vote is more evenly distributed between Biden and Trump.

Therefore, when a precinct is highly partisan Republican, when a precinct has a high percentage of people voting straight party ticket Republican, the swing voters are unlikely to be equally heavily Republican and vice versa. This gives the exact same outcome as his data without the need for fraud.

democrats will 99.99% of the time vote democrat especially if they are voting for president

Speaking of laughable statistics, what are the chances that 100% of "irregularities" fall on one, and only one, direction?

What makes you think that 100% of irregularities do? Perhaps you only hear about irregularities that fall in one direction?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

They need to find out what the overnight "software updates" were during the ballot counting.
The DOJ needs to start using Test Ballots to check the veracity of the ballot counts.

 

[Oddball]

They need to find out what the overnight "software updates" were during the ballot counting.
The DOJ needs to start using Test Ballots to check the veracity of the ballot counts.

It seems to me that hand recounts will smoke this all out.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is a STRUCTURED DEBATE thread.. I get to pick 2 rules in addition to the Zone2 regular board rules.. Here they are:

1) Discussion in this thread is ONLY about the posted analysis from Dr Shiva at MIT.. If you're not willing to watch the presentation, understand his definitions, analyze his results - dont bother posting here. I assume just a dozen or so USMB members will make that effort.. Others will be thread banned and/or warned.

2) Not the place to go into gory detail about the IMPLICATIONS of finding systemic voting machines in America.. Just jumping the gun BEFORE any evidence certain.. We all understand that FINDING systemic voting machine issues is an Armageddon type situation and a potential nation ending disaster,.. THIS THREAD is for pure analysis of ONE THEORY...

This presentation by the MIT folks was the FIRST AND ONLY assertion of machine voting issues that used ACTUAL open sourced election data. And it's a repeatable experiment.. Those are the kind of assumptions that ultimately matter. It's gotten SCADS of attention in the MMedia and SoshMedia in the past 4 or 5 days.. And I initially thought something was proven here.. After watching the vid several times and portions MANY times - trying to understand his variable definitions and assumptions -- I'm having doubts at what he's proven here.

My current thinking is that because of the way HE CHOOSE his variables and the ASSUMPTIONS that he made -- that ALL he's really proven here is that "partisans in states that allow "STRAIGHT PARTISAN" voting options -- prefer that method over checking boxes on a "normal" full ballot.. I'll flesh out that analysis later on..

But simply -- Straight party voting (SPV) preference IS prefered by partisans over the effort of splitting votes on a normal ballot.. His SCATTERPLOTS use Republican SPV (RSPV) as a measure of the PARTISIANSHIP of that precinct on the Xaxis.. But that is not the partisan SPLIT in that precinct. His Y axis takes "Other Votes for Trump" (OVT) in that district where the voters choose NOT to SPV.. He Subtracts OVT - RSPV to use on that axis,

Given that problem definition -- The slope of ANYTHING plotted in that space is -- (OVT - RSPV) / RSPV..

ALL THAT IS a "proof" that partisans of ANY PARTY prefer straight party line voting.. A "Duhh" moment.. And the negative slope on all his scattergrams just shows that "open ballot voting" drops off the more a district leans Republican.

My contention is -- that if he ran the SAME TEST on DEMOCRATS -- you'd get the same results..

I'm NOT done yet. Still arguing with my wife and biz partner. We both have EXTENSIVE work and publications in signal and image processing data analysis and can handle "HSchool Algebra 2" math and graphing -- which is what this exercise really is.. It's just REALLY TRICKY to set up the variables and definitions. After that, it's simple statistical graph analysis.

Welcome all folks that are capable of reviewing this.. If you dont know what a scatterplot is or independent/dependent variables on a graph -- please dont even try.. There's DOZENS of OTHER threads on this..

The presentation is at the link below and COULD (given the SoshMedia MMedia tyrants) disappear tonight from the web.. So be quick to watch it and take notes if you want to join in..

Seems pretty cut and dried.
Somebody is putting algorithms in the voting software that is stealing votes in heavy Republican districts from Republicans or specifically Trump.....but not in Democrat districts.

 

[flacaltenn]

Has anyone done a forensic of the program itself to see if the code was written to create fraud?
Then if so, get coders or execs to talk who ordered it and was Pelosi or any agent of a politician involved in the scheme, including CIA agents or FBI and were they threatened or compromised not to talk?

Not discussing a massive dive into certifying voter machines are free of malignant features.. Just this ONE asserted "proof" of a particular machine bias.. If that's not something you want to invest time and effort in -- use all the OTHER threads available for that..

We know that there IS "a feature" which COULD be malignantly manipulated.. Thats the fraction voting results that show decimal point representation. They ADMIT it's there. But its advertised purpose is to "weight" elections.. Maybe in Zimbabwe -- but in the USA -- no fucking legal use at all.. Unless we're going back to the slavery 3/5ths type of representation..

 

[flacaltenn]

This is a STRUCTURED DEBATE thread.. I get to pick 2 rules in addition to the Zone2 regular board rules.. Here they are:

1) Discussion in this thread is ONLY about the posted analysis from Dr Shiva at MIT.. If you're not willing to watch the presentation, understand his definitions, analyze his results - dont bother posting here. I assume just a dozen or so USMB members will make that effort.. Others will be thread banned and/or warned.

2) Not the place to go into gory detail about the IMPLICATIONS of finding systemic voting machines in America.. Just jumping the gun BEFORE any evidence certain.. We all understand that FINDING systemic voting machine issues is an Armageddon type situation and a potential nation ending disaster,.. THIS THREAD is for pure analysis of ONE THEORY...

This presentation by the MIT folks was the FIRST AND ONLY assertion of machine voting issues that used ACTUAL open sourced election data. And it's a repeatable experiment.. Those are the kind of assumptions that ultimately matter. It's gotten SCADS of attention in the MMedia and SoshMedia in the past 4 or 5 days.. And I initially thought something was proven here.. After watching the vid several times and portions MANY times - trying to understand his variable definitions and assumptions -- I'm having doubts at what he's proven here.

My current thinking is that because of the way HE CHOOSE his variables and the ASSUMPTIONS that he made -- that ALL he's really proven here is that "partisans in states that allow "STRAIGHT PARTISAN" voting options -- prefer that method over checking boxes on a "normal" full ballot.. I'll flesh out that analysis later on..

But simply -- Straight party voting (SPV) preference IS prefered by partisans over the effort of splitting votes on a normal ballot.. His SCATTERPLOTS use Republican SPV (RSPV) as a measure of the PARTISIANSHIP of that precinct on the Xaxis.. But that is not the partisan SPLIT in that precinct. His Y axis takes "Other Votes for Trump" (OVT) in that district where the voters choose NOT to SPV.. He Subtracts OVT - RSPV to use on that axis,

Given that problem definition -- The slope of ANYTHING plotted in that space is -- (OVT - RSPV) / RSPV..

ALL THAT IS a "proof" that partisans of ANY PARTY prefer straight party line voting.. A "Duhh" moment.. And the negative slope on all his scattergrams just shows that "open ballot voting" drops off the more a district leans Republican.

My contention is -- that if he ran the SAME TEST on DEMOCRATS -- you'd get the same results..

I'm NOT done yet. Still arguing with my wife and biz partner. We both have EXTENSIVE work and publications in signal and image processing data analysis and can handle "HSchool Algebra 2" math and graphing -- which is what this exercise really is.. It's just REALLY TRICKY to set up the variables and definitions. After that, it's simple statistical graph analysis.

Welcome all folks that are capable of reviewing this.. If you dont know what a scatterplot is or independent/dependent variables on a graph -- please dont even try.. There's DOZENS of OTHER threads on this..

The presentation is at the link below and COULD (given the SoshMedia MMedia tyrants) disappear tonight from the web.. So be quick to watch it and take notes if you want to join in..

Seems pretty cut and dried.
Somebody is putting algorithms in the voting software that is stealing votes in heavy Republican districts from Republicans or specifically Trump.....but not in Democrat districts.

Again if you dont want to invest in reviewing this group's work -- please find another thread.

You need evidence to assert that. This work is the only REAL repeatable, open source data analysis I've seen.. THat's why I'm laser focused on it.. If all the other evidence is as shaky as I think this is -- you'll never have a case.

 

[flacaltenn]

The idea that this is somehow proof of election fraud is laughable in my mind.

His analysis splits the electorate up into two groups. One group votes straight ticket and one votes for each candidate individually. His assumption is that people who vote straight ticket and people who vote for each candidate individually should vote for Trump at equal rates.

This assumption is completely untested and unfounded. He barely tries to defend it. He spends no time attempting to demonstrate this is what we should assume is correct. There's no normal comparison group. Nothing. We are just supposed to believe it's true and use this as a basis for saying that votes were shifted.

I think, instead, he's just demonstrating human nature.

I think it's pretty obvious that the people who vote straight ticket are more partisan than those who do not. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans, they're partisan. That means those in the middle are more likely to be swing voters. I think that swing voters are less likely to vote heavily one way over the other, their vote is more evenly distributed between Biden and Trump.

Therefore, when a precinct is highly partisan Republican, when a precinct has a high percentage of people voting straight party ticket Republican, the swing voters are unlikely to be equally heavily Republican and vice versa. This gives the exact same outcome as his data without the need for fraud.

Using SPVoting as proxy for the "republicanism" of any particular precinct IS problematic.. Because it's ASSUMED that "in some mathematical fashion" SPV will go up "correlated" with the partisianship of that precinct. We know that intuitively that's true. But SPV doesn't prove that.
Will work for Dems as well..

But it's NOT a definitive measure of the partisanship.. I can give you a couple better ones..

1) Use the percent REGISTERED Repubs in that precinct.. It's available -- have at it..
2) Better choice. Because this MIT analysis never uses any metric other the Repub votes. And No TURNOUT factor. And turnout boosts the vote for one party or another. So use the relative TURNOUT for each party.. This metric isn't part (to my knowledge) of a General election race. Because no one is queried for party at polls or by mail.. But it can be DISCOVERED thru inquiries to the registrars or approximated by the percentages posted in the results for the Prez race..
3) Just use the final vote for Trump/Biden in that district as your "measure of partisanship".

So much for his "x-axis" independent variable.. Now look at the Y axis.. (See OPost for definitions)

(OTV - RSPV) / RSPV

This choice ONLY means anything in terms of the method voters use to choose to fill out a ballot.. NOTHING AT ALL to do with the actual competition or imbalances in Turnout. And actually the "minus" seems kinda arbitrary at first glance. But it's NOT.. The way it's formulated -- as RSPV goes UP -- the numerator goes downs linearly, but the fraction goes down even faster.

Seems to me the clearer metric is to use --
OTV + RSPV) / RSPV

In this case the Y value has strategic meaning.. The numerator is TOTAL VOTES for Trump in that district. It wasn't the other way 'round.. And in this case -- as RSPV goes UP -- the NUMERATOR goes up -- but the fraction goes down even faster.

MY BET IS -- if you used the latter Y formula -- the curves would be FLAT like he postulates they SHOULD BE -- if there was no "machine hanky panky"..

I'm looking at how much work it would be to get Michigan precinct data for one of Dr. Shiva's examples.. And it would take maybe an hour to RE-RUN a scattergram with that change..