100% of votes for Obama in a hundred precincts

Yep, unlike the Diaper Don "Circus" guys, I know when a GOP lead committee says there are ties to Trump and Russia, it's true!

 

I do not understand what you say. I think that you too.

 

i understand exactly what i'm saying. this is not rocket scoence.

perhaps consider a piles of marbles, consisting of 50 white and 50 black.

first seperate them into 10 "congressional districts "

8 with 6 white and 4 black

2 with 1 white anf 9 black (lets call them "black majority " districts which exist in many states.

further subdivide each "congressional district" into 10 smaller piles pf 2 marbles each, call them "state legislative districts. "

even totally at random, the state districts in the black majority congressional districts will have at least 3 black pairs, but , of course, those distracts are gerrymandered as well, so you've most likely got 4 100% black pairs.

of course, real life contains larger numbers but there is a third subdivision into "precincts. " it is a statistical certainty that some precincts in the gerrymandered "democratic majority" district will vote virtually 100% democratic .

 

Back in 2004 I wrote this Fractal concepts in democracy article. And at the moment I didn't know of gerrymandering. But one of the readers quickly brought it to my attention. So I do know of it sins back then.

The problem with your argument is that the "marbles" in any practical gerrymandering are the precincts, not people. For those are the smallest units we have voting stats readily available. So they arrange precincts in congressional districts to achieve the desired result. If the OP mentioned congressional districts - gerrymandering could have been the culprit. But as long as it mentions precincts - then no way.

 

i think you are a little behind on "gerrymandering technology." data from a company like Cambridge analytics can tweak a precinct pretty closely.

 

Queens as a whole did not get 100% but many its precincts did. The OP data can be verified using https://uselectionatlas.org/

 

Is it unusual for a handful of small precincts to get 100% in some elections? Looks like it happened for other candidates as well.

 

In the largest of these "small" precincts all 520 voters voted for Obama. Is 520 small to you? Is a hundred precincts mentioned in the OP "a handful?"

You personally did gerrymandering? Or worked with the data from Cambridge Analytics?

 

It's less than half the size of an average precinct, so yes.

There are over 170,000 precincts in the US. So, yeah, 100 is a handful.

Any more softballs?

 

From statistics point of view it is a large number of trials.

A 100 was not in all US but only in 4 states. But even out of 170,000 is this what you would expect based on probability theory?

If you are honest you should kick this one pretty hard: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...tion-inquiry/2011/12/11/gIQAmBR8nO_story.html

 

Then show your statistical argument. Maybe even find a few statisticians who are willing to agree with you. You'll need to compare to other elections, and also look at how many precincts McCain won by the same margins in the same election.

I'd have to base that on previous elections. But, hey, if you have a report from a statistician, let me know. I'll take a look at it.

Why run away so soon?

 

I already gave you another elections to compare in my previous post. But you ran away. Once more:

"United Russia’s reported election results are so improbable as to violate Gauss’s groundbreaking work on statistics."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...tion-inquiry/2011/12/11/gIQAmBR8nO_story.html

Estimates give that ten millions votes were fraudulent

https://web.archive.org/web/2012020...as-between-10000000-and-20000000-votes/128218

Now Compare Russian elections


to Michigan elections



And estimate the number of fraudulent votes in Michigan.

 

So is the conclusion of this thread that Russia's elections are as fair as the US's?

 

Seems like a pretty bonkers conclusion, but no doubt that is what some will "conclude."

 

Well that seems where the battle is being fought, the statistical probability of zero votes for candidate X in a given precinct.

 

So far no one has actually provided a statistical analysis. We've seen two graphs comparing Russian and Michigan that don't look remotely comparable.

If you wanted to a do a statistical analysis here, it would be useful to actually look and the voting history of the precincts, voter turnout nation-wide broken out by party registration, number of registered party members in each precinct, the size of the precincts, and also ask the question as to whether or not there were ALSO precincts where all of the voters voted for McCain.

 

I think you're in luck. There seem to be links, starting with the OP, that may answer your questions.

 

Michigan graph has all the essential fraud-signalling features listed by the analysts from Market Financial

One non-essential difference is that in Michigan the Obama curve is Gaussian between 20% and 50%. One essential difference is that in Michigan the peak at magic number 100% is much more prominent than in Russia: tops of the Gaussian peak. This indicates more fraud.

Was addressed here http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-for-romney-a-statistical-possibility.603127/
And was shown to be impossible with such number of registered Republicans.

You can see from the graph that in Michigan there were no such precincts.

 

Am I right that in what Americans call primaries, individuals have to first of all tell someone somewhere they are Democrat or Republican, and then get to vote for which Democrat or Republican they would like in the presidential race?
If I am right, people could declare (to someone, somehow, somewhere) that they are Democrat or Republican or both, and deliberately vote for someone they think is useless in order to give the person they favour a better chance.
If I am right what happens to the independently minded, or those who want to wait and see up to the last minute?
To what extent at all levels of the American version of ‘democracy’ is it the individual person rather than the political party that people vote for?
In the UK the verminous Conservative party got way less than 50% of the national vote, but the system allowed them to get power and install the lying, corrupt, lazy, useless, vile Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, didn’t the same thing happen with Donald Trump?
Most countries that call themselves ‘democratic’ can’t claim to have anything other than a version of democracy as the concept of democracy varies from place to place. The American version seems particularly weird.

 

Hatred for Boris Johnson does not mean love for another. Hatred is hatred.

 

Another interesting feature is that with the same amount of fraud evidence MSM declared Russian elections fraudulent and US elections honest.

 

Obviously...
And EVERYBODY Knows It...
Prove Me Wrong!
Still it begs the question:
WHY are Fantastical (Easily Explainable) Claims about the Election of 2008 "Relevant" in 2022?

Zero votes in a precinct for a presidential candidate: It happens, and experts say it's not voter fraud

Political science professor Jonathan Rodden of Stanford University ran the numbers for the 2008 election, and found hundreds of precincts where John McCain received no votes - and some that gave no votes to Obama as well.
"If we limit ourselves to precincts in which at least 10 votes were cast, there are almost 180,000" in the U.S., Rodden told me. "Of these, 477 gave every single vote to Obama, and 52 gave every single vote to McCain."

https://www.ajc.com/blog/jamie-dupr...s-say-not-voter-fraud/UBtQcSBfew00GpmtrhvzwN/

 

That's about it.

To be more technical, it varies by state. Some states require an official party declaration, and you always get the ballot for the party you've declared yourself a part of. In other states, you make a choice each primary election for either a Republican or Democratic ballot, without ever making an official party declaration.

Also, while information on your specific votes is not available to the public, the party you've declared for or the type of ballot you asked for is information that the public can view.

That's correct. There's more paperwork if you have to actually declare for a different party, but it can be done.

The only real downside to doing it is if you ever want to run-for or work-for one of the parties. When you apply, local party officials will check your record. If you've been getting ballots for the other party, that will raise questions.

The system is what it is. Those people either have to make a choice, or not vote in the primary.

That can be a whole other big thread, so I won't go into it.

 

Thank you for explaining this.
I believe it would be reasonable to say that in America, like anywhere else, there is a version of 'democracy' rather than the actual democracy if you see what I mean.
In China people will openly discuss that in a choice (maybe at a local or factory level) there is also a version of 'democracy', not because of the party people vote for, but which individual person standing for a particular position they prefer.
Now that is not something I would go for personally, but an argument might be made regarding the individual rather than the party should be the focus.
I wonder if Donald Trump was voted for because of who he is, or because of which party he represented.

 

What is a constant is the need to resort to hyper-partisan media hype and paranoidal conspiracy confections in lieu of substantive data that does not provide the desired results, such as are confirmed or refuted by legal challenges and their adjudications.

Disgruntled candidates and their hypesters have recourse to legitimate investigations, recounts, audits, and judicial appeals. There is no reason to believe that defeated office-seekers would not avail themselves of these legitimate options for redress.

As in the case of the anecdotal account in this thread, why do not self-interested Republicans, if they feel they have actual evidence, pursue and exhaust all such valid options?

Is it the case that - as in the 2020 presidential election where dozens of appeals courts threw frivolous claims out-of-court, after so many recounts, investigations, and audits had only served to confirm the certified result, that paranoidal, blowhardism must arise?

Sore losers, unable to handle the truth, throwing tantrums and overthrowing the game board, is not without precedent.