Members banned from this thread: signalmankenneth, Phantasmal, archives, katzgar, Nordberg, Frank Apisa, LV426, reagansghost, Trumpet, AProudLefty and Geeko Sportivo


Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 78

Thread: Is evidence of Biden's election theft being discovered?

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    77,037
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Question Is evidence of Biden's election theft being discovered?




    Let us examine the statistical analysis and conclusions in more detail.

    First, a definition of terms:

    Write-in ballots. These are ballots marked by voters who choose to vote for a candidate other than those listed on the printed ballots.

    Minor party ballots. These are ballots marked for candidates of minor parties who were qualified to be on the election slate, such as the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party. Approved minor party candidates will vary by state, depending on qualification requirements.

    WIMP. This is an acronym that stands for the sum of write-in and minor party ballots in a given state.

    Adjudication. This is a manual process by which the “intent of the individual voter” is determined when a given ballot cannot be determined by automated tabulation devices. Adjudicated ballots are typically write-in ballots, mismarked ballots (double votes), misaligned ballots, and other categories. Note: it is also possible to program voting machines in order to recognize a “straight party” ballot as misaligned and automatically sending it to the manual adjudication process. Adjudication is really where the vote shifting happens, particularly if the election officials in a given precinct are all from one political party and/or vote shifting malware has “infected” tabulation devices.

    All eyes are on the ongoing forensic audit in Arizona despite desperate DEMOCRAT resistance:


  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,059
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1,248 Times in 852 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 175 Times in 165 Posts

    Default

    Gotta love the people that rely on statistical analysis from people that get the data wrong.

    Blehar claimed that the vote turnout in Montgomery County was over 90%
    Another aberration in Montgomery county is that some 90%± of registered voters voted. That is an extraordinarily high – and suspicious – percentage.
    https://uncoverdc.com/2020/11/12/pen...pect-counties/


    It was actually 84.27%
    https://electionresults-montcopa.hub.arcgis.com/

    When someone is making a statistical analysis and their starting numbers are off by more than 5%, that means their conclusions are off by at least that much.
    He that tweets much, is much mistaken

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Poor Richard Saunders For This Post:

    christiefan915 (05-04-2021), martin (05-05-2021), Phantasmal (05-04-2021)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    77,037
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Blehar claimed that the vote turnout in Montgomery County was over 90%. It was actually 84.27%.When someone is making a statistical analysis and their starting numbers are off by more than 5%, that means their conclusions are off by at least that much.
    So you say. Non sequitur.




    As the graphic above reveals, Biden's nearly 4.2 million vote improvement in Margin of Victory (MOV) appears to be remarkably similar to the decrease (4.3 million) in WIMP over the same period.

    Is this just another one of many numerical coincidences that keep popping up in the 2020 election results that points to tabulation (adjudication) problems in the election system, or did Libertarians, Greens, and others just decide to vote for Biden?


    https://revealthesteal.blogspot.com/2021/04/wimp-vote-tabulation-nationwide-issue.html

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    9,761
    Thanks
    714
    Thanked 5,703 Times in 3,462 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 1,142 Times in 1,082 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Gotta love the people that rely on statistical analysis from people that get the data wrong.

    Blehar claimed that the vote turnout in Montgomery County was over 90%

    https://uncoverdc.com/2020/11/12/pen...pect-counties/


    It was actually 84.27%
    https://electionresults-montcopa.hub.arcgis.com/

    When someone is making a statistical analysis and their starting numbers are off by more than 5%, that means their conclusions are off by at least that much.
    It's a shame we have to waste our time educating them like three year olds. But we do.

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,059
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1,248 Times in 852 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 175 Times in 165 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    So you say. Non sequitur.




    As the graphic above reveals, Biden's nearly 4.2 million vote improvement in Margin of Victory (MOV) appears to be remarkably similar to the decrease (4.3 million) in WIMP over the same period.

    Is this just another one of many numerical coincidences that keep popping up in the 2020 election results that points to tabulation (adjudication) problems in the election system, or did Libertarians, Greens, and others just decide to vote for Biden?


    https://revealthesteal.blogspot.com/2021/04/wimp-vote-tabulation-nationwide-issue.html
    As you will note, Trump's increase in votes from 2016 to 2020 is remarkably similar to 3 times the loss in WIMP votes. Did all those decide to vote for Trump 3 times? It makes as much sense as your contention.


    Meanwhile back in reality -
    There is no correlation between the numbers and even if there was correlation doesn't equal causation. Voters do not vote in a random fashion. They vote based on candidates and their emotions. Biden was much more likeable than Trump in 2020 so it is understandable that he got more votes. In 2016 both Trump and Clinton had large negatives so there was more reason to not vote for either. In 2020, there was a partisan feeling that if you didn't vote against the major party candidate you liked least they would likely win so there was more incentive to stick with the 2 major parties. Ignoring all those factors doesn't make a quality statistical analysis. It makes for GIGO.
    He that tweets much, is much mistaken

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    77,037
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    As you will note, Trump's increase in votes from 2016 to 2020 is remarkably similar to 3 times the loss in WIMP votes. Did all those decide to vote for Trump 3 times? It makes as much sense as your contention. Meanwhile back in reality - There is no correlation between the numbers and even if there was correlation doesn't equal causation. Voters do not vote in a random fashion. They vote based on candidates and their emotions. Biden was much more likeable than Trump in 2020 so it is understandable that he got more votes. In 2016 both Trump and Clinton had large negatives so there was more reason to not vote for either. In 2020, there was a partisan feeling that if you didn't vote against the major party candidate you liked least they would likely win so there was more incentive to stick with the 2 major parties. Ignoring all those factors doesn't make a quality statistical analysis. It makes for GIGO.
    So you say.

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,059
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1,248 Times in 852 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 175 Times in 165 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Blehar’s findings from his Pennsylvania analysis include the following:
    [*]The total number of WIMP votes in Pennsylvania declined by ~113,000 votes from 2016 to 2020. This is highly unlikely given the massive number of mail-in ballots cast in 2020 compared to previous elections.
    This is an idiotic statement. There is no evidence that WIMP correlates with mail in votes. The increase in mail in votes gives us a decrease in WIMP in 2020 which may be because WIMP votes decrease as mail in ballots increase or it could have no correlation at all. Blehar gives no basis for his claim and it is unsupported by any facts.


    [*]Only 453 write-in votes were received by mail-in ballot out of 2.6 million mail-in ballots cast. This is an improbably low number given that Howie Hawkins, the Green Party write-in presidential candidate, received ~34,000 fewer votes by mail-in than down-ballot Green Party average. Note that a similar situation occurred with Jill Stein in 2016 in Pennsylvania, causing her to refer to the Keystone State’s election system as a “national disgrace.”
    More garbage that is unsupported by any facts. The fact that people split their votes between parties in not evidence of some conspiracy. In fact before the last couple of decades people often split their ballots between parties.


    [*]Jo Jorgenson, the Libertarian candidate for president, received ~20,000 votes fewer by mail-in than down-ballot Libertarian candidates. This is a highly unlikely circumstance and a historical anomaly that strongly suggests vote shifting took place.
    Again, a claim with no support.

    [*]Vote-switching analysis determined that ~64,000 absentee ballot votes were taken from Trump and switched to Biden through the adjudication process, while ~30,000 Trump Election Day and absentee votes were directly shifted to Biden.
    I am curious as to how this supposed vote switching occurred. Considering that the vote count was close in the state, when and where were these ballots switched? When Pennsylvania started to count the 94,000 provisional ballots, Biden already had a lead of 53,476 votes. You earlier listed the definition of adjudication. Adjudication ONLY occurs when the ballot can't be read by the machines. Behler is claiming that 94,000 ballots were adjudicated and changed to Biden. It is interesting that number is the same as the total number of provisional ballots. Are Trump voters less able to fill out ballots correctly so only their ballots went to an adjudication process? That would seem to be a statistical impossibility.


    Blehar believes the following happened:

    Conclusion #1: The total adjudication manipulation resulted in Biden winning the state by ~80,500 votes, but in reality, President Trump actually won Pennsylvania by over 186,000 votes.
    Conclusion #2: Biden’s margin of victory could have only been obtained through adjudication manipulation.
    If Biden won by 80,500 votes and 94,000 were switched how does that mean Trump won by 186,000? If we subtract 94,000 votes from Biden and give 94,000 votes to Trump that doesn't put Trump up by 186,000. Are you really this math impaired, Legion?
    He that tweets much, is much mistaken

  9. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    77,037
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Blehar’s findings from his Wisconsin analysis include findings similar to those in Pennsylvania:

    • The total number of WIMP votes cast in Wisconsin declined by 132,307 votes from 2016 to 2020
    • There were no WIMP votes tabulated during the infamous early morning ballot spike on 4 November. Based on historical comparisons, there should have been approximately 10,000 WIMP votes during that ballot spike.
    • Howie Hawkins, the Green Party presidential candidate, received only 1,089 write-in votes compared to the 31,072 votes received by the 2016 Green Party candidate.

    This is highly suspicious and an indication of probable ballot adjudication manipulation.

    Note that Stein made similar allegations of machine miscounts in 2016.

    The total missing (improperly adjudicated) WIMP ballots in Dane and Milwaukee counties was approximately 33,000 votes, with the rest of the missing 132K WIMP votes scattered in other counties across the state.

    Conclusion: the “missing” WIMP votes that were adjudicated to Biden almost certainly provided his ~20K margin of victory in the state of Wisconsin.

  10. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    77,037
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    According to 538.com, nearly 48 million absentee ballots were cast in 2020.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-so-few-absentee-ballots-were-rejected-in-2020/

    Only about 3 in 10,000 absentee voters wrote in a candidate for President?

    That seems highly unlikely.

    In 2016, write-ins accounted for .05% of the total vote.

    https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/election-and-voting-information/federal-elections-2016/

  11. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,059
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1,248 Times in 852 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 175 Times in 165 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    So you say.
    So you can't dispute anything I say.
    He that tweets much, is much mistaken

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Poor Richard Saunders For This Post:

    Phantasmal (05-05-2021)

  13. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    77,037
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    So you can't dispute anything I say.
    I'm under no obligation to do so. The burden of proof lies with the claimant.

  14. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    865
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 243 Times in 193 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 6 Times in 6 Posts

    Default

    .
    All the HARD evidence in the world will never change a pablum sucking dims mind.

  15. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    77,037
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Ballot adjudication in voting systems utilizing ballot images

    Methods, systems, and devices are described for adjudicating votes made on voter-marked paper ballots.

    Voter-marked paper ballots may be scanned to obtain optical image data of the voter-marked paper ballots.

    The optical image may be analyzed to determine the votes contained in the ballot for tabulation purposes.

    One or more votes on the ballot may be identified as requiring adjudication by an election official.

    Adjudication information, according to various embodiments, is appended to the optical images of the voter-marked paper ballots such that the image of the ballot and the image of the adjudication information may be viewed in an optical image.

    The optical image may be stored in a file format that allows the ballot image and the appended adjudication information to be viewed using readily available image viewers.


    https://patents.google.com/patent/US9202113B2/en

  16. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,059
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1,248 Times in 852 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 175 Times in 165 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Blehar’s findings from his Wisconsin analysis include findings similar to those in Pennsylvania:

    • The total number of WIMP votes cast in Wisconsin declined by 132,307 votes from 2016 to 2020
    • There were no WIMP votes tabulated during the infamous early morning ballot spike on 4 November. Based on historical comparisons, there should have been approximately 10,000 WIMP votes during that ballot spike.
    • Howie Hawkins, the Green Party presidential candidate, received only 1,089 write-in votes compared to the 31,072 votes received by the 2016 Green Party candidate.

    This is highly suspicious and an indication of probable ballot adjudication manipulation.

    Note that Stein made similar allegations of machine miscounts in 2016.

    The total missing (improperly adjudicated) WIMP ballots in Dane and Milwaukee counties was approximately 33,000 votes, with the rest of the missing 132K WIMP votes scattered in other counties across the state.

    Conclusion: the “missing” WIMP votes that were adjudicated to Biden almost certainly provided his ~20K margin of victory in the state of Wisconsin.
    Blehar's findings are a bunch of BS based on cherry picking his data by ignoring all previous elections.
    WIMP percentage of total vote by election year in Wisconsin
    2000 - 4.3% of ballots were WIMP (Nader was on the ballot and got 3.6% of the vote)
    2004 - 0.98 of ballots were WIMP
    2008 - 1.4% of ballots were WIMP
    2012 - 1.3% of ballots were WIMP
    2016 - 6.3% of ballots were WIMP (Gary Johnson got 3.58%)
    2020 - 1.5% of ballots were WIMP

    Clearly we can see that 2106 was the anomaly. 2020 was just a return to the normal for Wisconsin when it comes to the number of WIMP ballots. When we look at the results we see that those voting for others do so not for a party but for a specific candidate that has caught their attention. Nader in 2000. Gary Johnson in 2016.

    Conclusion - Blehar did not find anything other than his head being up his own ass.
    He that tweets much, is much mistaken

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Poor Richard Saunders For This Post:

    Phantasmal (05-05-2021)

  18. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,059
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1,248 Times in 852 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 175 Times in 165 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I'm under no obligation to do so. The burden of proof lies with the claimant.
    So when are you going to provide any proof to defend your posts? Or are you not a claimant but in reality only an ignorant stooge?
    He that tweets much, is much mistaken

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 83
    Last Post: 05-11-2021, 07:55 AM
  2. APP - Understanding 2020 Election Theft in Six Easy Steps
    By canceled.2021.1 in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-17-2020, 04:06 AM
  3. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 03-03-2019, 09:50 AM
  4. Election cheating discovered
    By (o,o) in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-19-2017, 10:50 AM
  5. Liberal Nut Jobs And Election Theft
    By toby in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-05-2006, 01:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •