Michigan elections look as bogus as Russia and Uganda elections

a reply to: xuenchen

But Trump was dumb enough to believe them? Even to the point was wanting to appoint Powell as a special counsel? Yikes, I never thought you'd come out and call him an idiot for believing them.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: vernichter

I see pretty graphs and a link to an explanation of how the graphs were made.

I so far see nothing that explains any meaning to the graphs other than they show a strong vote for one side.

Isn't that how elections work? One side wins because they got more votes? Please explain your OP.

This is actually a pretty good example of why you should use mathematical modelling, rather than pure statistical analysis.

When you do a purely statistical breakdown you tend to lose context. In this case the context is that Trump was a deeply divisive president who upset a lot of conservative leaning democrats and moderate leaning republicans, so they flipped their vote. Which isn't something that you can really show on a simply graph like this that just plots distributions.

a reply to: vernichter

Let's look at Michigan's voting record

Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Trump
Biden

They voted for a moderate or centerist Democrat every election, and when the Democrats fielded a leftist Democrat they flipped their vote to Republican.

When Trump was up against Clinton they flipped, when Trump was against Biden they flipped back again.

Prior to Trump Michigan hadn't voted Republican since 1988

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: vernichter

Did something not go your way and now you find there could be no other explanation other than the other side cheated?

You could address the same criticism to Washington Post and PNAS articles on Russia elections. Or statistical anomalies suddenly lose significance when they are found in US elections?

originally posted by: vernichter

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: vernichter

Did something not go your way and now you find there could be no other explanation other than the other side cheated?

You could address the same criticism to Washington Post and PNAS articles on Russia elections. Or statistical anomalies suddenly lose significance when they are found in US elections?

All the graph actually shows is that Michigan voters flipped for Biden. They previously flipped for Trump, so it's not really a surprise.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

They can't possibly show that since they do not include 2016 elections. The problem is not that there were too many votes for Biden, but that in some precincts there were almost 100% of votes for Biden with the state average of little above 50%.

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: vernichter

Did something not go your way and now you find there could be no other explanation other than the other side cheated?

You should have asked this question the authors of Washington Post and PNAS articles who challenged Russia elections. Why you did not do it?

a reply to: vernichter

You should have asked this question the authors of Washington Post and PNAS articles who challenged Russia elections. Why you did not do it?

I am generally uninterested in elections in Russia.

a reply to: tamusan

But now when it was brought to your attention as a person of integrity you should.

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: vernichter
a reply to: Brotherman
……..

If you do the same analysis with Michigan elections you arrive at the same result.

No, you don’t.

The guy who wrote this article—Mikhail Simkin—didn’t do the same analysis on the 2020 Michigan election that the PNAS authors—Klimek, et. al. did for the Russian elections in their 2012 paper. Simkin simply showed one plot of the logarithmic vote rate for Michigan in 2008 and 2012, compared to Switzerland and Spain. What the log plot shows is that there was a high fractional turnout of the electorate in 2008 and 2012 in Michigan and it was skewed toward the Democratic candidate. Interestingly, by far the highest turnout was in 2012 (for Obama), and not in 2020. This is well established by voting records in Michigan. Simkin doesn’t discuss this obvious fact, probably because it doesn’t fit his narrative.

What would it change if there was another similar plot from 2012 Michigan elections? And Why Klimek et al did not include US data in their plot? Apparently because it did not fit their narrative.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
Klimek, et. al. did not rely on this simple logarithmic vote rate plot to come to their conclusions. They looked at the number of voting districts in Russia (and Uganda) that had supposedly 100% turnout and 100% voting for the incumbent. It’s almost impossible for a voting district to have that kind of fingerprint by chance. I don’t think there were any Michigan voting districts in 2008 and 2020 that showed that pattern.

They used the logarithmic plot as a part of their proof. And used it (in Supplemental Information) to estimate the number of stuffed bulletins. In addition 99% of votes for Obama in a 1000+ precinct is also impossible if you believe Gaussian distribution.

originally posted by: frogs453
Powell has been sanctioned,disbarred and never did release the Kracken.

And why no consequences for the authors an the editors of the PNAS article?

originally posted by: carewemust
Of course Michigan election officials, Dem AG, and Dem Governor, would criticize anyone disputing the election results. That's common sense.

In this video you can see them stuffing ballots in Detroit: rumble.com...

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: vernichter
a reply to: Brotherman
……..

If you do the same analysis with Michigan elections you arrive at the same result.

No, you don’t.

The guy who wrote this article—Mikhail Simkin—didn’t do the same analysis on the 2020 Michigan election that the PNAS authors—Klimek, et. al. did for the Russian elections in their 2012 paper. Simkin simply showed one plot of the logarithmic vote rate for Michigan in 2008 and 2012, compared to Switzerland and Spain. What the log plot shows is that there was a high fractional turnout of the electorate in 2008 and 2012 in Michigan and it was skewed toward the Democratic candidate. Interestingly, by far the highest turnout was in 2012 (for Obama), and not in 2020. This is well established by voting records in Michigan. Simkin doesn’t discuss this obvious fact, probably because it doesn’t fit his narrative.

The "higher turnout" argument sounds an awful lot like a "we manufactured a bunch of voters that didn't exist and they voted" argument. Because manufactured voters tend to have a 100% turnout rate.

Klimek, et. al. did not rely on this simple logarithmic vote rate plot to come to their conclusions. They looked at the number of voting districts in Russia (and Uganda) that had supposedly 100% turnout and 100% voting for the incumbent. It’s almost impossible for a voting district to have that kind of fingerprint by chance. I don’t think there were any Michigan voting districts in 2008 and 2020 that showed that pattern.

So, if I understand you right, these districts didn't have 100% or near 100% turnout? They just voted heavily skewed toward one candidate?

And we've seen in the USA's polarized politics, this can happen, and not be due to fraud. Sometimes a neighborhood is entirely occupied by voters for one party, or groupies who all want to feel like they're part of one community in their political views.

A 100% or even near 100% turnout would be highly suspicious. (And is the real issue with Russian election results.) But just everyone living in a highly urban area, or a region where they share the same social/economic status, can lead to nearly unanimous politics among those who do bother to vote.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
A 100% or even near 100% turnout would be highly suspicious. (And is the real issue with Russian election results.)

Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books

thenewamerican.com...

a reply to: vernichter

Yep happened in 2016 for a total of 782 votes spread out over 200 precincts.

Republican Lawyers Association

It was found to be human error in the poll books.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: vernichter

Yep happened in 2016 for a total of 782 votes spread out over 200 precincts.

Republican Lawyers Association

So when in US attendance exceeds 100% is OK because it exceeds by only a small number. But in Russia a 100% attendance is suspicious?

originally posted by: frogs453
It was found to be human error in the poll books.

The article does not say that.

originally posted by: 1947boomer

Klimek, et. al. did not rely on this simple logarithmic vote rate plot to come to their conclusions. They looked at the number of voting districts in Russia (and Uganda) that had supposedly 100% turnout and 100% voting for the incumbent. It’s almost impossible for a voting district to have that kind of fingerprint by chance. I don’t think there were any Michigan voting districts in 2008 and 2020 that showed that pattern.

In Detroit in 37% of the precincts there was over 100% turnout.

www.reuters.com...

originally posted by: 1947boomer

Klimek, et. al. did not rely on this simple logarithmic vote rate plot to come to their conclusions. They looked at the number of voting districts in Russia (and Uganda) that had supposedly 100% turnout and 100% voting for the incumbent. It’s almost impossible for a voting district to have that kind of fingerprint by chance. I don’t think there were any Michigan voting districts in 2008 and 2020 that showed that pattern.

Maggie Hassan Wins 1,100 Votes from Town with Population Under 700

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

a reply to: sarahvital
I was going to reply the same!

Either Manufactured votes or all the illegals voting Dem. Just like its been said a million times.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous