Election statistics question

Statistically formula question and bear in mind this election comes down those 7-8 battleground states and only 5-10 counties in those states

So if we have the number of registered voters per state and the number of those who already voted, along with the numbers of newly requested voter registrations for the state's populations, can't we come up with some decent election forecasting based on this and other statistical info?

for example here in Georgia Ive found a decent site for relatively updated population by county, can't we take the number of votes already and extrapolate approximately how many remain per county?

Is there a NON-MSM news site that has all this compiled?

Georgia Total Registered Voters: 7,484,310 some counties already have 60% voted

sos.ga.gov...

independentvoterproject.org...

originally posted by: putnam6
Statistically formula question and bear in mind this election comes down those 7-8 battleground states and only 5-10 counties in those states

This isn't exactly correct. It'll come down to the battleground states, but every county matters since it's winner-take-all in the electoral college for all those states. Winning in certain counties can be offset by losing big in other counties.



The answer to the rest of your post is no, because to do any kind of extrapolation you'd have to know how many people are actually going to turn out to vote. Voter turnout percentage is unpredictable.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: putnam6
Statistically formula question and bear in mind this election comes down those 7-8 battleground states and only 5-10 counties in those states

This isn't exactly correct. It'll come down to the battleground states, but every county matters since it's winner-take-all in the electoral college for all those states. Winning in certain counties can be offset by losing big in other counties.


The answer to the rest of your post is no, because to do any kind of extrapolation you'd have to know how many people are actually going to turn out to vote. Voter turnout percentage is unpredictable.

Well, you can be dismissive, but respectfully, in 2020 Georgia came down to the 7-8 greater metro Atlanta counties, where 2 counties flipped to blue and the rest had a huge turnout.

While smaller counties can get 70%-80% turn out that is unheard of in metro counties.

It would take a massive shift in the rural counties to make a difference, and in Georgia atleast rural counties are fairly cut and dried they are red or blue

We have a ceiling of registered voters and in Georgia, by county, I have the numbers of those who already voted by county

We know Fulton County had a record turnout in 2020, no way it will increase that by more than 10% in 2024 Nationally the historic increase in 2020 was just 7 percent.



For perspective Fulton Georgia it's most populous county has almost 50,000 fewer voters registered in 2024 than in 2020 Im sure I can find the increase from 2016 to 2020 for the county

Georgia was up 8.3% from 2016 to 2020. Fulton County has a little over 350,000 remaining registered voters in total

so with some math and some extrapolation, there's the ceiling

a reply to: putnam6

Answering a yes/no question with "no" isn't being dismissive.

You wanted to know if it could be done. I said no. Now you're certain it can be done, which seems strange why you had to ask in the first place.

If you can predict what the vote totals will be in Georgia on Tuesday, please, by all means, tell us.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
a reply to: putnam6

Answering a yes/no question with "no" isn't being dismissive.

You wanted to know if it could be done. I said no. Now you're certain it can be done, which seems strange why you had to ask in the first place.

If you can predict what the vote totals will be in Georgia on Tuesday, please, by all means, tell us.

Come on man I wasn't trying to argue here, I came here for help perhaps Im not explaining it properly, but yeah turnout percentage is one number but we should be able to find a floor and a ceiling aka a range. YES NO MAYBE

FWIW when you suggested I didn't understand the basics of the Electoral College I took it as a bit dismissive. As if I would tackle something as in-depth and mind-numbingly mathematical as this without a basic understanding of the EC.

While im not a professional statistician one of my favorite books since my teens was about statistics, and It's titled How to Lie with Statistics. Even though that was its overall premise, it had good points, and one of them was if you have enough data points (check) and it's spread out over multiple periods (check) you should be able to make more than just an educated guess.

You are concerned that we won't know the turnout while we have county-level data for 2020 and I think 2016 too. If we know that and we know we aren't likely to see such a huge increase over 2020 and even if we do it will likely be 2-3 points

So my rationale is any county that won by more than 10% in 2020 will likely not flip in 2024 even with a high turnout. IF Georgia's turnout was plus 8.6 in 2020 the statistical probability of it reaching 8.6 again is unlikely if not highly unlikely
then a professional statistician should be able to identify the approximate turnout for each level of increase from a 2% increase to the unlikely 10%

Keeping in mind what I've already shown Fulton County Ga has 50,000 fewer registered voters than 2020. Statistically 72.6 of those were likely Democrats, Now take the registered voters in 2016 and 2020 and see what percentage voted take the 2024 number and go plus 2% till you get to 10% high range and minus 2% for the low range. In 2020 Fulton was at 65.5% of registered voters so far Fulton is at 53.4% they got to make up 12% in 5-6 days.


For perspective, Fulton County's 2020 totals included over 8000 new registrations 1.2% of the county's total votes again they lost 50,000 already

www.cnn.com...

This 2020 CNN page is key it easily shows which counties were close conventional wisdom suggests thats where the



Here's the leap of faith somewhat but it is still solid statistical forecasting now take all the known data, the known numbers and plug in the differences in percentages in polling from the known results in 2016 and 2020 and plug them into the current 2024 numbers



Hell all I need now is the data on the spreadsheet plug in the numbers with the percentages and we will have a somewhat likely range.

I think I can put it together once I find a good county totals spreadsheet to copy and paste

a reply to: putnam6

Okay. Yes, you can absolutely predict the final vote totals ahead of time. That seems to be the only answer you'll take so there it is. Happy?

a reply to: putnam6

America does not have a one person, one vote system.

The reason wasn't just to raise the voting power of the less populous states, it was primarily to reduce the worth of the vote of coloured people/slaves to an arbitrary 3/5ths of that of a Caucasian.

a reply to: putnam6

The question is will Trump out perform the polls again is not so straightforward. Many polls have made adjustments to better reflect Trump's popularity, I have been told. They do not want to get it so wrong a third time.

In the 2022 mid-terms the Democrats as a whole out performed the polls.

We can not expect the polls to underestimate Trump again.

I do find it funny that devout Democrats believe Trump's team is rigging the polls and think Harris is in good shape to win.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: putnam6

America does not have a one person, one vote system.

The reason wasn't just to raise the voting power of the less populous states, it was primarily to reduce the worth of the vote of coloured people/slaves to an arbitrary 3/5ths of that of a Caucasian.

Give us a break from the retarded rhetoric. The American voting system is such that the votes from a single California county won't outweigh the votes from the entire state of Montana.

The racially charged dog whistle talking points have lost their power in this day and age,

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: putnam6

America does not have a one person, one vote system.

The reason wasn't just to raise the voting power of the less populous states, it was primarily to reduce the worth of the vote of coloured people/slaves to an arbitrary 3/5ths of that of a Caucasian.

Is that still the system today? 😀

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: putnam6

America does not have a one person, one vote system.

The reason wasn't just to raise the voting power of the less populous states, it was primarily to reduce the worth of the vote of coloured people/slaves to an arbitrary 3/5ths of that of a Caucasian.

Give us a break from the retarded rhetoric. The American voting system is such that the votes from a single California county won't outweigh the votes from the entire state of Montana.

The racially charged dog whistle talking points have lost their power in this day and age,

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons - US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3.

It's still there!

Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

The Electoral College’s Racist Origins

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: putnam6

America does not have a one person, one vote system.

The reason wasn't just to raise the voting power of the less populous states, it was primarily to reduce the worth of the vote of coloured people/slaves to an arbitrary 3/5ths of that of a Caucasian.

Is that still the system today? 😀

The electoral college exists, and is still formulated on the basis of the 3/5ths compromise, which is written into the US Constitution. A Constitution which is supposed to define overriding guidance on all other US law.

So, yes, the same ratios, applied to the same states, via the electoral college, are still there today, regardless of changing demographics and civil rights.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: putnam6

America does not have a one person, one vote system.

The reason wasn't just to raise the voting power of the less populous states, it was primarily to reduce the worth of the vote of coloured people/slaves to an arbitrary 3/5ths of that of a Caucasian.

Is that still the system today? 😀

The electoral college exists, and is still formulated on the basis of the 3/5ths compromise, which is written into the US Constitution. A Constitution which is supposed to define overriding guidance on all other US law.

So, yes, the same ratios, applied to the same states, via the electoral college, are still there today, regardless of changing demographics and civil rights.

Show us those proportioned numbers exactly as ratioed in the 2020 election. Be specific. 🤣

originally posted by: putnam6

Georgia Total Registered Voters: 7,484,310 some counties already have 60% voted

sos.ga.gov...

independentvoterproject.org...

If More than 7,484,310 votes are cast, how do you find which ballots are ILLLEGAL, and must be thrown out? (Assuming the judges are not compromised/crooks...like most were in 2020.)

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: putnam6

America does not have a one person, one vote system.

The reason wasn't just to raise the voting power of the less populous states, it was primarily to reduce the worth of the vote of coloured people/slaves to an arbitrary 3/5ths of that of a Caucasian.

Is that still the system today? 😀

The electoral college exists, and is still formulated on the basis of the 3/5ths compromise, which is written into the US Constitution. A Constitution which is supposed to define overriding guidance on all other US law.

So, yes, the same ratios, applied to the same states, via the electoral college, are still there today, regardless of changing demographics and civil rights.

Show us those proportioned numbers exactly as ratioed in the 2020 election. Be specific. 🤣

The population per electoral vote for each state and Washington, D.C., 2020 census. A single college elector could represent more than 700,000 people, or under 200,000.

Since vast sums of money are controlled by the elected, the fines for the few who vote faithlessly or that abstain or invalidate their electoral vote are trivial in terms of what they could be paid to corrupt the college result. There is strong incentive for fraud and corruption.

In years where the popular vote and the college vote diverge significantly, it shows that the college vote is being corrupted, without a doubt. There is no other systematic source of the discrepancy. Yet no-one seems to be getting upset over that.

The electoral college means the USA can be controlled by an elite, each of which maintains tremendous power over the rest of the country, over its resources, over its wealth, and over the lives of its people.

The EC system has similarity in practice from a ruling royal court, with only the peerage having any political say, and overall power and wealth being concentrated in a royalty.

It is medieval, not modern, or even vaguely "of the people, by the people and for the people".

a reply to: chr0naut

Show us where the 3/5 rule is used. You stated it's still the same.

We all understand the population thing with the Congressional Districts.

Show us what you said before. 😊

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Show us where the 3/5 rule is used. You stated it's still the same.

We all understand the population thing with the Congressional Districts.

Show us what you said before. 😊

...

It is in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution to this day and has not been revoked or removed.

This clause guides the number of Senators and Representatives each State may have, and in that way also governs the number of seats in the Electoral College (although the Electoral College is not actually mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution, which means it is not something protected by the Constitution).

Even though there is now anti-slavery stuff in the Constitution, you still have the 3/5ths compromise dictating the numbers in Congress, the Senate, and the Electoral College.

a reply to: chr0naut

"Even though there is now anti-slavery stuff in the Constitution, you still have the 3/5ths compromise dictating the numbers in Congress, the Senate, and the Electoral College."

Show us some exact examples of the 3/5ths compromise dictating the numbers in Congress, the Senate, and the Electoral College. Stop deflecting. Show us your points in exact terms. 😀

Show us where a number of counted population was reduced to 3/5 in any State.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

"Even though there is now anti-slavery stuff in the Constitution, you still have the 3/5ths compromise dictating the numbers in Congress, the Senate, and the Electoral College."

Show us some exact examples of the 3/5ths compromise dictating the numbers in Congress, the Senate, and the Electoral College. Stop deflecting. Show us your points in exact terms. 😀

Show us where a number of counted population was reduced to 3/5 in any State.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The clause does not specifically use the term "slavery", it refers instead to the rather ambiguous "other persons". As the clause has not been removed, it can be used by anyone trying to redefine what "other persons" might possibly mean, and to disenfranchise them of their electoral rights.

As an example, Trump's legal team tried in 2020 to define 'undocumented residents of the US' as those "other persons" to which the 3/5ths compromise could apply. Fortunately, they failed in that case, but if they keep slinging mud at the wall, some day some of it will stick.

Without a doubt, the 3/5ths loophole is still there while ever the clause invoking it remains. All one has to do is to specify a subset of the US population in law as 'other persons' and the compromise can be, once again, applied, as Trump's legal team were attempting to do.

The 14th removes slavery (well, almost), but the 3/5ths compromise is still just waiting for a tyrannical enough government to implement it against some subset of the North American population.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

"Even though there is now anti-slavery stuff in the Constitution, you still have the 3/5ths compromise dictating the numbers in Congress, the Senate, and the Electoral College."

Show us some exact examples of the 3/5ths compromise dictating the numbers in Congress, the Senate, and the Electoral College. Stop deflecting. Show us your points in exact terms. 😀

Show us where a number of counted population was reduced to 3/5 in any State.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The clause does not specifically use the term "slavery", it refers instead to the rather ambiguous "other persons". As the clause has not been removed, it can be used by anyone trying to redefine what "other persons" might possibly mean, and to disenfranchise them of their electoral rights.

Incorrect, this is how it actually reads:

" ...the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Tell me, what state in the United States still has slavery?

The 14th removes slavery (well, almost),

How does it "almost" remove slavery?

but the 3/5ths compromise is still just waiting for a tyrannical enough government to implement it against some subset of the North American population.

Hmmm, almost as if we have another amendment in our constitution that ensures we have the capabilities to keep a government from doing that.

What oh what could that be? hmmmmmmmm