The odds for 2 mulattos to get a fully white child are higher than of the anomalies in US elections

Excuse me, but who cares?

 

Don't muddle the issue the OP is trying to imply...That the results of US elections (even pandemic rules ones) are generally infallible.

Well, I know better than the OP since I worked in a precinct for years.

 

Infallible? Perhaps, your mean improbable?

So improbable that it is more likely for two mulattos to beget a white child.

 

No, IMO, the OP is implying that even pandemic rules elections have a higher chance of being an accurate reflection of the will of the people than the high chance that two mulattos won't beget a white child.

 

Of course, I know this inference by the OP that even pandemic rules elections have a higher chance of being accurate reflections of the will of the people than the high chance that two mulattos, two mixed white and black raced individuals, won't beget white children is incorrect since I've worked in precincts during elections and had the job of verifying votes and know firsthand that votes that aren't screened before cast (like pandemic rules election votes which aren't screened before cast) will lead to invalidly casted and counted votes.

BTW, aren't we all mulattos in some sense? I mean, for example, doesn't the result of the begetting of blacks and Italians create a white child, a Sicilian, a 'black Italian' with freckles, black hair and pasty white skin, so to speak?

I dunno, maybe the OP is advocating for racial purity.

 

In this video you can see mulattos stuffing ballot boxes: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-they-stuffed-ballot-boxes-in-detroit.603710/
As a consequence the elections results are so improbable that it is more likely for two of those mulattos to beget a white child.

For electoral integrity.

 

In another thread there is this information:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...n-a-hundred-precincts.602694/#post-1073648810
The number of precincts with 100% vote for McCain is ten times less than for Obama. And they are several times smaller. So if this anomaly indicates fraud - there was at least 20 times less fraud for McCain.

 

If you do so you indeed can get a white child. But by identifying as black white woman commits fraud.

Similarly the anomalies in US elections are not surprising if there was electoral fraud.

 

Why then Washington Post considered statistics an appropriate tool to expose fraud in Russian elections?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...tion-inquiry/2011/12/11/gIQAmBR8nO_story.html

 

Here's the full quote/

Doesn't seem like WaPo is saying statistics are an appropriate tool to judge fraud. They are merely reporting what some have argued.

 

But they do not say that it is false claim like they always do when report on "election deniers." Why such difference in attitude?

Now what about the analysts from Market Financial: Russian elections:statistical bias between 10,000,000 and 20,000,000 votes

 

Depends on what the false claim is. Were they disputing conspiracy theories like sharpie gate, 2000 mules, more votes than registered voters in counties or were they using actual curves and distributions to prove the election wasn't rigged?

 

Let us estimate the total voter fraud in Michigan using the method employed by the analysts from Market Financial for Russian elections

Let us substitute Michigan numbers into the above algorithm.




Using the Obama distribution one can easily estimate the number of votes above that dictated by normal distribution. Let us continue symmetrically the Obama curve beyond50% - a mirror reflection. The distribution should fall to zero at approximately 70% (x-axis). The difference between the measured EP curve and the imaginary extension is the bias introduced by a control force. On average, there are 20 polling stations in any 0.5% bin after 70% in the Obama curve. One has 20x2x30=1,200 polling station with biases.Now we have to evaluate the number of votes. The mean value for the Obama distribution is 50%. Then for all polling stations the bias can be estimated as the measured value less 50%. Between 70% and 100% one has 35% on average, i.e. (100%+70%)/2 – 50%. For an average polling station with 1000 voters one has a positive bias of 350 voters. For all 1,200 stations this gives 420,000. This figure depends on the average size of polling stations. For 500 voters stations the final number is 210,000.

 

What evidence do you have to support that voting across divisions follows a normal distribution. Do you have a link to the data set for Michigan?

 

A Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences article says its the law of nature. With only Russia and Uganda deviating from it:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210722109




Albeit Michigan looks just like Russia and Uganda (from https://www.researchgate.net/public...tistical_detection_of_election_irregularities )

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362405634_Michigan_2008_Presidential_Elections_by_precinct

 

So which one is that: there was fraud in US elections or the PNAS proof of fraud in Russian elections was fraudulent?

 

You don't care for electoral fraud?

 

I don’t think we are doing it that way anymore…

 

Who are "we?" And what you are not doing "that way anymore?"

 

i'd like to see the vote rate on a log scale for more than 2 countries to see how Michigan lines up. Also in 2008, Obama was the first minority to run for president, so that is likely to skew the graph.

 

The post you quoted has vote rate plots for eleven countries. Note that not just 2008 Michigan but also 2020 Michigan looks like Russia.

In 2016 there were more votes than voters in 37% Detroit precincts: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...cords-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/

 

When the same statistical anomalies happened in Russian elections progressives called them a sure sign of electoral fraud: https://t.co/ea0Tu8TIGt