Mathematician says End of election night mathematically impossible

Here’s a nice article from real news OAN about how the math shows it was algorithms doing the cheating. Anyone familiar with statistics instantly knew there was “election night irregularities” in my opining and I think this guy proves it.

If we had a right wing media they would be chanting “election night irregularities” just like the left wing media chanted Russian Collusion for 3 years.

Interesting choice of word there. Not sure if this is satire now.

Try listening to the guy.

Someone ask Mr. Solomon how a hand recount of the actual physical ballots, spread out over thousands of precincts, managed to replicate an algorithmically altered vote count.

You do realize that anyone attempting to say Georgia’s vote was altered in this manner has to explain something that would be truly impossible, right?

It is utterly astounding how well The Narrative has taken hold in its true believers that every time I ask this question, it is completely ignored.

As it will be again this time.

4 Likes

I worked with statistics for a living. I’m certain Biden won fair and square. In regards to that mathematician, he is cherry picking a sample that is too small to be statistically relevant .

8 Likes

You are aware as many as six states changed their voting laws/ rules without the Constitutional authority of their respective state legislatures right? Whatever accommodations they created were illegal. No executive or judicial branch of state government can change or create election law.
Water over the dam now J’Biden has been sworn in but the “fair and square” assessment is flawed.

2 Likes

Gonna need a better link to sway anybody on that issue.

This is an entirely untested legal argument, with no precedent to support it.

While there are rumours and indications that some on the Supreme Court now may support this interpretation, it has never actually ruled so in any cases - and unless the Court decides to take such a case, it won’t be resolved.

4 Likes

This just simply isnt true.

Ok. I listened to the guy. His claim is that at some time, t, the votes at that time across multiple precincts all had the exact same 5.5555% votes of Trump votes. HIs point is that the odds of matching that percentage exactly are astronomically low.

Let’s go to the video. Stop it at 44 seconds in and you see the guy’s table with numbers that he used for his math. I plugged them into Excel to see if I got the same exact numbers he claimed. Nope. Of the 11 precincts, only three had the exact number he claimed all eleven had, 5.5555%. Eight had different numbers. Do the math yourself.

So that makes his probability calculation completely moot. Plus, as peeks said, they guy is cherry picking times to try and find votes that match his criteria. That’s a big no-no.

Cratic, now that you can see the math doesn’t add up, ask yourself why OANN didn’t do the simple calculations I did to check his work. Makes one wonder about this news source.

4 Likes

So what. There is no way to show who, if anyone, benefitted from those changes. We can’t simply declare Trump the winner because laws were changed that might be legally guestionable.

3 Likes

Maybe you can address how a hand recount of the physical ballots in thousands of precincts in Georgia replicated what was supposedly an algorithmically altered vote count?

Come up with a convincing argument as to how this happened…then you won’t need a better link.

I will be listening for the deafening silence that will again follow this question…as it has the multiple other times I’ve asked it.

2 Likes

I calculate the odds that this post will be ignored, and the same or similar topic will be posted in a few days/weeks’ time as if it was never discussed before, to be 99.987453%.

4 Likes

Off the top of head - presumably, any machine algorithm to adjust Biden’s vote tally would also keep tabs on the actual counts of precincts that were being adjusted. It would not be difficult to notify the Biden electoral staff how many actual fake Biden ballots would need to be added , or how many Trump ballots shredded to bring the physical ballots into harmony with the algorithmically adjusted tallies.

The math is wrong…

Q-anon

1 Like

Just to be clear, the mathematician said eleven precincts all had exactly a 5.5555% vote for Trump at a given time (different time for each precinct oddly). That’s the claim. And if you watch the video, you can see the table with the numbers. Math said the actual numbers are:

5.5555
5.6338
5.5555
5.5819
5.5865
5.5555
5.6179
5.5776
5.5925
5.5818

The mathematician then uses binomial probability to determine the probability and arrives at impossible odds BASED ON ALL THE RATIOS BEING 5.5555% exactly, which they are not.

Cratic, your response?

4 Likes

Ah! Finally someone comes in with a widespread coordinated plot that would involve hundreds and hundreds of vote counters, but yet they would all remain silent!

It only took several months…I was waiting for someone to be the first to go over this ridiculous cliff.

:rofl::rofl:

1 Like

The conspiracy widens to include people in positions in multiple precincts that were ready, willing and able to shred/add ballots as needed.

Does that make sense to you?

1 Like

How many counties did the Trump campaign allege had altered votes electronically? Was it ALL counties or just selected key Democrat run counties?

They are all 5.6