100% of votes for Obama in a hundred precincts

What is your easy explanation? That in precincts all votes were for Obama because everybody voted for Obama?

On the very same page you posted your comment on I posted a link to Washington Post article that said that similar anomalies in Russian elections signal fraud:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ndred-precincts.602694/page-6#post-1073684941

Why they suddenly lose statistical significance when happen in US?

 

EXACTLY...
Anything Else?

Btw--I would like to Welcome you to PF...
It is a rather Uncommon (if not Unprecedented) Scenario when an account registered 10 Years ago (Registered in 2012, 1st Used in 2022) is finally becoming active after a Decade of Being Registered and Not Posting.
So, once again, Welcome to PF...

 

You did not answer my question: why same anomalies were considered a signal of voter fraud in Russian elections by Washington Post?

And chose to change subject. The topic that I posted 2012 was memory-holed.

 

Huh?
WHAT "Topic" was "posted" 2012?

 

So what?
Everybody who has been following things KNOWS:
That, In 2008:
52 Precincts gave every single vote to McCain.

 

Except none of them actually do so. You let me know when you have an actual source that addresses my questions. None have been provided.

 

If you had read your own sources, you would know this is a false statement.

Please read your own sources. And there is nothing unusual about such a peak when you are using small number sets . . . including precincts with less than 100 votes and/or mostly black precincts.

 

It has happened in every modern election, and predictably so. They just want to play make believe that THIS TIME it's a problem. They aren't capable of providing any real argument.

 

You do realize that Trump lied about the exact same thing . . . right? Not that I expect facts to matter to Trump supporters at this point. It was never something that concerned them.

 

They seemed to answer your questions to me. Maybe the material is a little too difficult. It's OK.

 

If you would like to quote any part of the material that addresses my question, feel free. Perhaps my questions were too difficult for you to understand. It's OK.

 

If with all presented evidence you believe that US elections were honest you should say that Washington Post and PNAS articles claiming fraud in Russian elections are fraudulent themselves.

 

You've made no statistical connection between the Russian elections and ours. You've been asked to do so . . . and you have refused to respond.

 

Remember, meme's are not facts.
Get some real new/data/facts. Perhaps you'll get your answer.

 

What? No real argument?
The OP had a meme.

 

People read this, and think its proof of a conspiracy, but it actually makes sense, and I'll bet McCain had more 100% districts than Obama, because most miniature 1-10 voter districts are in the countryside, and they tend to pull Republican. The link shows these were in fact miniature districts many of which had only 1 voter.

 

I never assume good faith questions from you, otherwise you would have detailed why the multiple links already provided were insufficient.

 

If you, or anyone else, could defend the links as being sufficient, they would have done so. None of the links provided address my questions. You are projecting your lack of good faith onto others.

But I'll do you some charity here: what WOULD you accept? Are you suggesting that, if anyone gives me any kind of link in "response" to my questions . . . while refusing to actually cite any part of the source that ACTUALLY addresses my questions . . . that it is now up to me to outline every source they provided and detail the ways in which it doesn't address my question? I mean, any ration person can see how that it is absolutely batshit insane and completely dishonest, but I'll do it for a couple of sources if that is what it takes to teach you how integrity actually works. Is that what you would like?

 

They weren't my links.

 

Another reading comprehension fail. I didn't say they were your links. But thank you for tacitly admitting that neither you nor anyone else actually addressed my questions.

 

There really wasn't any need for me to address your questions. I don't know how you assumed I was responsible for questions you have about sites and data that someone else researched and posted?

 

You claimed that there were links that answered my questions. This wasn't true. You appeared to defend the "statistical" arguments made by the OP and his supporters. But thank you for admitting that you have no position in relation to the claims made in this thread . . . I'll just assume it was a mistake that you were ever here.

 

I "appeared to defend"

I did? What did I say?

 

Read post #161. If it is too much to read the posts on a thread, that's one thing, but you are now saying it is too much that I ask you to know the content of your OWN posts. Make up your mind. Are you willing to defend these claims or not?

 

What I said:

They did. You are the one with unstated, unmentioned questions and critiques, not me.

If you can't go to the OP instead of flailing around trying to find someone else, that's not my problem.