This morning I posted Cultural Husbandry's thread on the election--going forward, as we say these days. Included was a short section that addressed the inherent improbability of all those Biden-only ballots that turned up after counting shutdowns. I just came across an enlightening passage at a previously commenter-recommended blog (Ray SoCal, I believe) that sheds additional light--and, as a bonus, also addresses the Benford Curve. So I'll just juxtapose the two passages below--they're that self explanatory.
Together or separately, what these quite passages do is show us the type of statistical evidence that any court should find compelling. It says--without any political argumentation: These identified events in the voting record are beyond anomalous. They are so wildly improbable that the systemic integrity of our electoral process is called into question. Unless this issue is addressed our elections will have no credibility. That's a hard argument to ignore, but--as Andy S. has noted--its very impersonality makes it a much easier road for a judge to go down when dealing with an election problem.
This is a major reason for optimism.
First, Cultural Husbandry:
Essentially most of the found votes turned up with a weird conundrum.
>They voted for Biden but did not vote for [anyone else]
>Essentially they only voted on a single thing per ballot.
>Statistically in the past this has happened at a rate of 3%.
>This year it ran at a rate of 18+%
>6x higher rate of ballots, but only a "26%" increase in voter turn out - statistical anomaly.
From physicist and author Travis Shane Taylor –
“In a sample space of 1 million marbles, 800,000 blue and 200,000 red the probability of drawing a blue marble is 80% the first time. To draw about 30 blue in a row is 0.124%. To draw 100 in a row is 0.0000000235%. To draw 250 in a row is more zeros to right of decimal point than stars in the universe!!!! To draw 138,000 blue marbles in a row is mathematically impossible within the age of the universe without human intent and interaction. In other words, cheating.”
Of course, when he wrote that it was before the 138k “typo” got retracted. So of course all the liberals who can’t balance their own checkbook immediately dismissed the whole thing… Problem is his math is almost as damning for 1k, 2k, 4k, 14k, or 23k marbles. You could even change it so that a bucket is 95% blue marbles, and the odds of you getting a thousand blue marbles in a row are functionally impossible. He used MathCad to calculate this. Excel doesn’t have enough zeros.
You’ve probably also seen a lot of mention of Benford’s Law over the last few days. Posts talking about it have been getting vanished off of Facebook (that I can confirm firsthand). https://theothermccain.com/2020/11/09/articles-mentioning-benfords-law-are-reportedly-banned-on-facebook/
Basically, when numbers are aggregated normally, they follow a distribution curve. When numbers are fabricated, they don’t. When human beings create what they think of as “random” numbers, they’re not. This is an auditing tool for things like looking for fabricated invoices. It also applies to elections. A normal election follows the expected curve. If you look at a 3rd world dictatorship’s election numbers, it looks like a spike or a saw.
There’s a bunch of different people out there running the numbers for themselves and posting the results so you can check their math. It appears that checking various places around the country Donald Trump’s votes follow the curve. The 3rd party candidates follow the curve. Down ballot races follow the curve. Hell, even Joe Biden’s votes follow the curve for MOST of the country. But then when you look at places like Pittsburgh the graph looks like something that would have made Hugo Chavez blush.
It’s amazing how all these extremely improbable statistical events just keep on happening, but only in the places where they make the most difference. Go figure. “It’s a miracle!” declared the Party of Science.