Scientific Methods of proving election fraud

originally posted by: rounda

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: rounda

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: rounda

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: rounda

Actually they're the only one here demonstrating any understanding of statistics.

Ok, fine. What’s the chances of finding one single ballot that was changed out of the million or more absentee ballots cast?

Surely, someone who understands statistics can figure that out, right? One in a million.

But there were three found. If you understand statistics, you’d know the chances of that is even smaller. (1/1,000,000) * (1/999,999) * (1/999,998)

And, to top it all off, to find them in a random selection off 100 ballots drops those chances even further. Because you now have to calculate the odds of picking that specific random batch of 100 ballots out of that million before you can even calculate the odds of finding the 3 irregular ballots.

Statistical impossibility.

Unless there was widespread fraud.

And this is just basic odds here. Even if you were to factor in a standard amount of fraud that occurs every year, the chances of finding 3 ballots in that small of a sample size would still be an impossibility.

He’s bitching about the sample size being too small, when in reality, the small sample size is what makes finding 3 irregular ballots statistically significant.

So no, he has no #ing clue what he’s talking about.

Deflection number four and a half. You get a credit for attempting some math.

Again, statistical significance does not mean what you think it means. Neither does statistically impossibility.

You're confusing sample size and population size.

You're working from common sense but statistics are often counterintuitive. Ask any numerate sixteen year old.

All the result in the sample that size tells us is we need a bigger sample. More data. Unless the aim is not to prove anything but to keep
innumerate cultists engaged and sending money.

For God's sake, you're on the internet. You're using the most powerful research tool and learning resource in the history of mankind. Seeing as you wasted your time at school, use it to educate yourself instead of watching videos that tell you what you want to hear.

Start here . Let me know if you need any help.

You’re a moron. You still don’t get it, do you?

(1/1000000) * (1/999,999) ... * (1/999,900) * (1/100) * (1/99) * (1/98)

You didn't check the link. You just doubled down.

We're not talking back of a cigarette packet calculations. We're not talking number soup to keep people angry and sending money.

We're talking statistics. The kind of stuff that will be taken seriously by a court.

Seriously, look up what statistical significance and statistical impossibility mean. Look at the link I posted from Statistics for Dummies or ask some local kids to help you. Work it all out and then show me what you've done.

Repeating the same old nonsense won't be any more correct next time than it has been so far.

Why don’t you do the math and show us all here how much you understand? Because you have no clue what you’re talking about.

Statistically impossible, genius.

I've already shown how much I understand and how little you understand.

I've asked you to back your assertions up with the math.

I've pointed out your misconceptions.

I've given you a link to a cheat sheet from Statistics for Dummies.

And this is your best response.

To be ignorant in the internet age is tragic. To be proud of your ignorance is disgraceful.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: rounda

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: rounda

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: rounda

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: rounda

Actually they're the only one here demonstrating any understanding of statistics.

Ok, fine. What’s the chances of finding one single ballot that was changed out of the million or more absentee ballots cast?

Surely, someone who understands statistics can figure that out, right? One in a million.

But there were three found. If you understand statistics, you’d know the chances of that is even smaller. (1/1,000,000) * (1/999,999) * (1/999,998)

And, to top it all off, to find them in a random selection off 100 ballots drops those chances even further. Because you now have to calculate the odds of picking that specific random batch of 100 ballots out of that million before you can even calculate the odds of finding the 3 irregular ballots.

Statistical impossibility.

Unless there was widespread fraud.

And this is just basic odds here. Even if you were to factor in a standard amount of fraud that occurs every year, the chances of finding 3 ballots in that small of a sample size would still be an impossibility.

He’s bitching about the sample size being too small, when in reality, the small sample size is what makes finding 3 irregular ballots statistically significant.

So no, he has no #ing clue what he’s talking about.

Deflection number four and a half. You get a credit for attempting some math.

Again, statistical significance does not mean what you think it means. Neither does statistically impossibility.

You're confusing sample size and population size.

You're working from common sense but statistics are often counterintuitive. Ask any numerate sixteen year old.

All the result in the sample that size tells us is we need a bigger sample. More data. Unless the aim is not to prove anything but to keep
innumerate cultists engaged and sending money.

For God's sake, you're on the internet. You're using the most powerful research tool and learning resource in the history of mankind. Seeing as you wasted your time at school, use it to educate yourself instead of watching videos that tell you what you want to hear.

Start here . Let me know if you need any help.

You’re a moron. You still don’t get it, do you?

(1/1000000) * (1/999,999) ... * (1/999,900) * (1/100) * (1/99) * (1/98)

You didn't check the link. You just doubled down.

We're not talking back of a cigarette packet calculations. We're not talking number soup to keep people angry and sending money.

We're talking statistics. The kind of stuff that will be taken seriously by a court.

Seriously, look up what statistical significance and statistical impossibility mean. Look at the link I posted from Statistics for Dummies or ask some local kids to help you. Work it all out and then show me what you've done.

Repeating the same old nonsense won't be any more correct next time than it has been so far.

Why don’t you do the math and show us all here how much you understand? Because you have no clue what you’re talking about.

Statistically impossible, genius.

I've already shown how much I understand and how little you understand.

I've asked you to back your assertions up with the math.

I've pointed out your misconceptions.

I've given you a link to a cheat sheet from Statistics for Dummies.

And this is your best response.

To be ignorant in the internet age is tragic. To be proud of your ignorance is disgraceful.

And the deflection begins.

You have no clue what you’re talking about.

Your link isn’t the math.

Do the math. Prove it.

originally posted by: rounda

And the deflection begins.

You have no clue what you’re talking about.

Your link isn’t the math.

Do the math. Prove it.

That's a pretty good summary of what I've been saying for a few days now.

Every time I patiently explain, every time I lead you towards the real math, every time I encourage to find out, to work it out, to learn, you double down.

So let's try some inferential reasoning.

If your basic odds, commonsense approach is valid, it would stand up in court. It would generate funds for research from independent bodies. Statisticians from around the world would stand behind it because to deny it would hurt their discipline. To prove conclusive fraud in a presidential election would make careers. It would give the MSM the kind of scalp that they would sell all their remaining principles and relatives to collect, the stuff of Woodward and Bernstein, the stuff that our grandchildren would remember. All backed up with hard, independently veriable mathematical truth.

It would not go away.

If my statistical approach is valid, all that's happening is a few fading YouTube videos, your passionate defence of your position and this old fool still doggedly trying to explain where you're going wrong on a fringe page of a fringe website.

Look around you.

It's just us.

And if I go away, there's just the videos and you, proclaiming victory to an empty gallery and slowly, painfully resisting the creeping realisation that all your emotional investment has been for nothing, all the "experts" who gave you ideas you barely understand but obstinately parrot have moved on to today's money spinner, that all your passionate hope and conviction have turned to ashes.

If I go away, there's just you howling, raging alone in the dark.

Like this.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: rounda

And the deflection begins.

You have no clue what you’re talking about.

Your link isn’t the math.

Do the math. Prove it.

That's a pretty good summary of what I've been saying for a few days now.

Every time I patiently explain, every time I lead you towards the real math, every time I encourage to find out, to work it out, to learn, you double down.

So let's try some inferential reasoning.

If your basic odds, commonsense approach is valid, it would stand up in court. It would generate funds for research from independent bodies. Statisticians from around the world would stand behind it because to deny it would hurt their discipline. To prove conclusive fraud in a presidential election would make careers. It would give the MSM the kind of scalp that they would sell all their remaining principles and relatives to collect, the stuff of Woodward and Bernstein, the stuff that our grandchildren would remember. All backed up with hard, independently veriable mathematical truth.

It would not go away.

If my statistical approach is valid, all that's happening is a few fading YouTube videos, your passionate defence of your position and this old fool still doggedly trying to explain where you're going wrong on a fringe page of a fringe website.

Look around you.

It's just us.

And if I go away, there's just the videos and you, proclaiming victory to an empty gallery and slowly, painfully resisting the creeping realisation that all your emotional investment has been for nothing, all the "experts" who gave you ideas you barely understand but obstinately parrot have moved on to today's money spinner, that all your passionate hope and conviction have turned to ashes.

If I go away, there's just you howling, raging alone in the dark.

Like this.

More deflection, good job.

Doubling down on a link isn’t going to make it right.

“Your approach” is to quote someone else without actually doing to math.

So do the math. Stop deflecting.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.