Show Posts
541
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 31, 2020, 06:22:27 PM »Quote from: Rama SetFeel free to engage with what I actually said
I'll help you out. Compare your invalid internet excuse to the abstract. I'll help you out by bolding the key phrases:Quote from: Rama SetCongrats, you found another sycophant using awful assumptions to try and build a valid argument. He assumes precincts across county lines but proximal to one another should have similar results. He doesn’t bother substantiating this other than to offer up 2016 results, but since 2016 and 2020 are different events with different circumstances, they aren’t directly comparable. It’s only evidence that results from one place varies from another and considering how redistributing works in the US, this should be expected rather than a surprise.
Abstract:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3756988QuoteThis study provides measures of vote fraud in the 2020 presidential election. It first compares Fulton county’s precincts that are adjacent to similar precincts in neighboring counties that had no allegations of fraud to isolate the impact of Fulton county’s vote-counting process (including potential fraud). In measuring the difference in President Trump’s vote share of the absentee ballots for these adjacent precincts, we account for the difference in his vote share of the in-person voting and the difference in registered voters’ demographics. The best estimate shows an unusual 7.81% drop in Trump’s percentage of the absentee ballots for Fulton County alone of 11,350 votes, or over 80% of Biden’s vote lead in Georgia. The same approach is applied to Allegheny County in Pennsylvania for both absentee and provisional ballots. The estimated number of fraudulent votes from those two sources is about 55,270 votes.
Second, vote fraud can increase voter turnout rate. Increased fraud can take many forms: higher rates of filling out absentee ballots for people who hadn’t voted, dead people voting, ineligible people voting, or even payments to legally registered people for their votes. However, the increase might not be as large as the fraud if votes for opposing candidates are either lost, destroyed, or replaced with ballots filled out for the other candidate. The estimates here indicate that there were 70,000 to 79,000 “excess” votes in Georgia and Pennsylvania. Adding Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, the total increases to up to 289,000 excess votes.
And from the document:
"Thus, this estimate uses three ways to account for differences in Trump’s share of the absentee ballot
vote: geographic closeness for relatively small areas, differences in Trump’s share of the inperson vote, and differences in the demographics registered voters."
...
"Table 3: 2020 Difference in Trump’s share of the Absentee Ballot Vote after adjusting for
Racial and Gender Demographics of Registered voters"
...
"Table 4: 2020 Difference in Trump’s share of the Absentee Ballot Vote after adjusting for
Racial and Gender Demographics of Registered voters and the difference in the in-person
vote"
---
They are not talking about 2016 vs 2020. They are talking about an excess of votes as compared to the number of registered voters.
So you don't know what you are talking about. I would recommend finding a credible source rather than writing internet opinion and championing your internet analysis.
These arguments fall along a remarkably similar line to those underpinning the Benford's Law and the 'one-in-a-bazillion' claims...
I will be keen to hear what other experts have to say about the assumptions made in trying to correlate absentee ballots with in-person ballots w.r.t demographics.
