You did not answer the most burning question from the first post, who are you and what are your credentials to even detailed data analysis? Some have said you are anonymous for safety reasons. Sorry, that is not good enough. Your speculation and others have put the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of public servants, whose names are known, into real and imminent danger. I have immediate family members ready to go to open armed rebellion and civil war. I won't give this, or any other "analysis" ANY credibility unless it is publicly signed by the authors

Glad you stated, twice, that your analysis "does not prove fraud", a point that a number of us were trying to make. I do hope someone is successful in being able to conduct the detailed forensic analysis just to end all of this speculation.

This very long piece stumbles at the outset. "(a) How likely is it that this would have occurred in the normal course of events?" is at best half an answer, useless without also evaluating the answer to the complementary question "(b) How likely is it that this would occur under an abnormal course of events."

Of *course* the probability of (a) is extremely small. So what? Almost any event is extremely unlikely if defined down to the details. The probability of (b) is also extremely small - but in my opinion far more likely than the probability of (a).

But even if you could calculate (a) and (b), which you can't do except to a simplistic and amateurish extent - you'd not have a good case unless you could further evaluate prior probabilities - which is also imponderable.

Both questions (a) and (b) are unanswerable except by stipulating a model: What exactly is meant by "normal course of events"? Does it mean voting is a random draw from a population of ... what? Defined how? What "abnormal" is to be considered? Is it retrofitted to be tailored to what makes the argument best - so if a collection of 100 paranoid conspiracy theorists imagine 100 different ways to manufacture ballots, do sleight of hand, con voters, invade ballot equipment factories in the dead of night - only the 1 hypothetical method that maximizes the observed result is considered?

Then there is the problem of prior probabilities. To do a proper job, it would be necessary to evaluate, for each of the 100 (or really infinitely many) schemes for cheating, the probability from a pre-election point of view, that it would take place. What is the probability that a brilliantly secretive and talented cabal would decide to cheat via scheme 52 not withstanding polls saying Biden will win without cheating, the danger of being imprisoned if caught, and the chance of being caught.

Voter Integrity, you never even go past my first question. How do you deem your dataset as actually representative of the election returns over the course of the vote count ? And if you do deem it representative, why did you remove about 10% of the vote updates. Your dataset includes 9,609 vote updates - you only analyze 8,954 of them.

Until you get past that one, you have zero credibility.... As I have shown, there are numerous anomalous vote updates buried in your dataset that you apparently ignore, only to go ofter anomalies of your choosing. That's not how data science works. Are you incompetent or did you choose to bias your results ? Or both ?

Actually, you've completely ignored the even more fundamental debunking of your analysis - that these are not in fact real-time feeds from the tabulation machines, but that they are ad hoc updates from different counties that don't all post their updates in a uniform fashion or with uniform frequency.

Your analysis treated the data as if it was in fact uniform, that there was some underlying consistent methodology to the posting of updates, and that is simply not the case. Edison Research themselves have even said that sometimes counties will put all the votes for one candidate into one update.

Because these are unofficial tabulations. They're not the same as the official tabulations that are used to certify the results. So the grouping of the batches that are reported to Edison aren't the same as the batches of ballots that go through the machine.

Unusual events are worth looking into. However, the use of quantitative analysis to buttress the suspicions are not valid. You can't meaningfully talk about probabilities of events that have already happened - the probability of something happening, given that it has occurred, is 1.000 exactly. So, follow up on your suspicions by finding out what actually happened. It should be difficult to hide, and easy to bring to light, some nefarious scheme that would necessarily have involved hundreds of malevolent people coordinating their activities in many different places.

Nice work! You should share a project at a repository! Most of us probably realize it doesn't take a doctorate and fancy credentials to do data analysis, but does take some coding skills and access to the data! Thanks for this article!

It's the data that's important, not the author. Take what is presented and go out to confirm it or disprove it. The information presented here has a logical pattern that can be investigated, challenged and tested. Laziness to discard it over not knowing the author...the author is not the most burning question.

Hi, Vote Integrity. We analyzed your research (among many others). Think the election was rigged? We’ll challenge anyone who believes Trump was the true winner to a debate judged by impartial experts that we’ll choose together. The stakes: $100,000.

I believe your probability calculation for footnote [7] is twice what it should be. It should be .0837%. The difference between your .167% and my .0837% is your use of the binomial (2 1), where it should be (2 2) (ie, 2 choose 2). My calculation can be supported by how you calculated footnote [8] and [9].

In the second paragraph, you provide a link to an upload at Gofile.io but it's not there, it shows the message: "This upload does not exist." So either the link is wrong/contains a typo, or Gofile is part of the Woke Tech crowd.

In framing the statistical question, how did you decide to focus on the probability of the updates occurring in those 3 states (versus those 3 plus PA, or plus AZ, etc.)? The more battleground states you add in, the less impressive the probabilities become.

You did not answer the most burning question from the first post, who are you and what are your credentials to even detailed data analysis? Some have said you are anonymous for safety reasons. Sorry, that is not good enough. Your speculation and others have put the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of public servants, whose names are known, into real and imminent danger. I have immediate family members ready to go to open armed rebellion and civil war. I won't give this, or any other "analysis" ANY credibility unless it is publicly signed by the authors

Glad you stated, twice, that your analysis "does not prove fraud", a point that a number of us were trying to make. I do hope someone is successful in being able to conduct the detailed forensic analysis just to end all of this speculation.

This very long piece stumbles at the outset. "(a) How likely is it that this would have occurred in the normal course of events?" is at best half an answer, useless without also evaluating the answer to the complementary question "(b) How likely is it that this would occur under an abnormal course of events."

Of *course* the probability of (a) is extremely small. So what? Almost any event is extremely unlikely if defined down to the details. The probability of (b) is also extremely small - but in my opinion far more likely than the probability of (a).

But even if you could calculate (a) and (b), which you can't do except to a simplistic and amateurish extent - you'd not have a good case unless you could further evaluate prior probabilities - which is also imponderable.

Both questions (a) and (b) are unanswerable except by stipulating a model: What exactly is meant by "normal course of events"? Does it mean voting is a random draw from a population of ... what? Defined how? What "abnormal" is to be considered? Is it retrofitted to be tailored to what makes the argument best - so if a collection of 100 paranoid conspiracy theorists imagine 100 different ways to manufacture ballots, do sleight of hand, con voters, invade ballot equipment factories in the dead of night - only the 1 hypothetical method that maximizes the observed result is considered?

Then there is the problem of prior probabilities. To do a proper job, it would be necessary to evaluate, for each of the 100 (or really infinitely many) schemes for cheating, the probability from a pre-election point of view, that it would take place. What is the probability that a brilliantly secretive and talented cabal would decide to cheat via scheme 52 not withstanding polls saying Biden will win without cheating, the danger of being imprisoned if caught, and the chance of being caught.

Amateurs!

Voter Integrity, you never even go past my first question. How do you deem your dataset as actually representative of the election returns over the course of the vote count ? And if you do deem it representative, why did you remove about 10% of the vote updates. Your dataset includes 9,609 vote updates - you only analyze 8,954 of them.

https://davidmuncier.substack.com/p/mystery-of-voting-integritys-missing

Until you get past that one, you have zero credibility.... As I have shown, there are numerous anomalous vote updates buried in your dataset that you apparently ignore, only to go ofter anomalies of your choosing. That's not how data science works. Are you incompetent or did you choose to bias your results ? Or both ?

https://davidmuncier.substack.com/p/what-voting-integrity-must-have-seen

Actually, you've completely ignored the even more fundamental debunking of your analysis - that these are not in fact real-time feeds from the tabulation machines, but that they are ad hoc updates from different counties that don't all post their updates in a uniform fashion or with uniform frequency.

Your analysis treated the data as if it was in fact uniform, that there was some underlying consistent methodology to the posting of updates, and that is simply not the case. Edison Research themselves have even said that sometimes counties will put all the votes for one candidate into one update.

Because these are unofficial tabulations. They're not the same as the official tabulations that are used to certify the results. So the grouping of the batches that are reported to Edison aren't the same as the batches of ballots that go through the machine.

Unusual events are worth looking into. However, the use of quantitative analysis to buttress the suspicions are not valid. You can't meaningfully talk about probabilities of events that have already happened - the probability of something happening, given that it has occurred, is 1.000 exactly. So, follow up on your suspicions by finding out what actually happened. It should be difficult to hide, and easy to bring to light, some nefarious scheme that would necessarily have involved hundreds of malevolent people coordinating their activities in many different places.

Nice work! You should share a project at a repository! Most of us probably realize it doesn't take a doctorate and fancy credentials to do data analysis, but does take some coding skills and access to the data! Thanks for this article!

It's the data that's important, not the author. Take what is presented and go out to confirm it or disprove it. The information presented here has a logical pattern that can be investigated, challenged and tested. Laziness to discard it over not knowing the author...the author is not the most burning question.

OP, are you still around? Any updates?

Finally found this after switching to DuckDuckGo... it’s a shame Google hid these posts.

Hi, Vote Integrity. We analyzed your research (among many others). Think the election was rigged? We’ll challenge anyone who believes Trump was the true winner to a debate judged by impartial experts that we’ll choose together. The stakes: $100,000.

https://rootclaim.com/analysis/was-there-widespread-fraud-in-the-2020-us-election

Was there fraud in the 2020 US presidential elections?

https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/Was-there-widespread-fraud-in-the-2020-US-election

Voter Integrity, again I ask you sir, are you aware of the work of Edward Solomon? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIxc8YMkny2KBaD5TQsSbpg

You should get in contact with him. edwardkingsolomon@gmail.com

I agree with Dennis that the Gofile.io mentioned in para. 2 is missing. Do any of you know how I could get it? Thanks.

I believe your probability calculation for footnote [7] is twice what it should be. It should be .0837%. The difference between your .167% and my .0837% is your use of the binomial (2 1), where it should be (2 2) (ie, 2 choose 2). My calculation can be supported by how you calculated footnote [8] and [9].

In the second paragraph, you provide a link to an upload at Gofile.io but it's not there, it shows the message: "This upload does not exist." So either the link is wrong/contains a typo, or Gofile is part of the Woke Tech crowd.

In framing the statistical question, how did you decide to focus on the probability of the updates occurring in those 3 states (versus those 3 plus PA, or plus AZ, etc.)? The more battleground states you add in, the less impressive the probabilities become.