Fourth year cycle anomalies

Here's a paper which to statisticians, especially those with practical experience, is a thing of beauty:
https://votepatternanalysis.substack...anomalies-2020
Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020

There are too many anomalies to wish away. They all have the same objectionable features and outcomes.

Enjoy!

Andre Jute
Mayor Daley is smiling down from Hell on the Donkey Party

On 12/1/2020 4:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's a paper which to statisticians, especially those with practical experience, is a thing of beauty:
https://votepatternanalysis.substack...anomalies-2020
Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020

There are too many anomalies to wish away. They all have the same objectionable features and outcomes.

Enjoy!

Andre Jute
Mayor Daley is smiling down from Hell on the Donkey Party



I've been trying for 2 weeks to explain those numbers to
sympathetic people whose eyes glaze over. Your average guy
is shut out from the data, the analyses and simple graphs
generally.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 19:39:47 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/1/2020 4:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's a paper which to statisticians, especially those with practical
experience, is a thing of beauty:
https://votepatternanalysis.substack...anomalies-2020
Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020

There are too many anomalies to wish away. They all have the same
objectionable features and outcomes.

Enjoy!

Andre Jute Mayor Daley is smiling down from Hell on the Donkey Party



I've been trying for 2 weeks to explain those numbers to sympathetic
people whose eyes glaze over. Your average guy is shut out from the
data, the analyses and simple graphs generally.

You do not have to read beyond the abstract to know that articles is a
croc of ****.

You can not reliably commpare updates from different electoral area or
even polling stations.

You need the comparisons to be between voting patterns at the same
polling booths for the same election.

Given that most people vote the same way every time and there are only a
few 'swingers', the voting patterns tend to be consistent as people also
tend to vote during the same time period. This is reflected in the
current practise to give ongoing updates of the tallies.

So, if the encumbent is popular, they often get early voters supporting
them, but voters for challengers may turn up later. I've seen tallies
swing either way.

Predictability of elElections in the USA also suffer from the fact that
voting is non-compulsory and there is no way of knowing how many are
actually going to turn up to votes. So, if there was a concerted effort
to rally people on the day, surges can take place.

On 12/1/2020 4:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's a paper which to statisticians, especially those with practical experience, is a thing of beauty:
https://votepatternanalysis.substack...anomalies-2020
Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020

There are too many anomalies to wish away. They all have the same objectionable features and outcomes.

Enjoy!

Andre Jute
Mayor Daley is smiling down from Hell on the Donkey Party



We're blessed to live in an Age of Miracles:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/powell...r_3599859.html

Dominion server assumed bodily into heaven!

Reminds me of Ms Clinton's evidence under supoena being
destroyed by the FBI. Just a small professional courtesy,
nothing to see here, move along now.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Am 02.12.2020 um 02:39 schrieb AMuzi:
On 12/1/2020 4:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's a paper which to statisticians, especially those with practical
experience, is a thing of beauty:
https://votepatternanalysis.substack...anomalies-2020
Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020

There are too many anomalies to wish away. They all have the same
objectionable features and outcomes.

I've been trying for 2 weeks to explain those numbers to sympathetic
people whose eyes glaze over.Â* Your average guy is shut out from the
data, the analyses and simple graphs generally.

Let's take just this one sentence in the preface:
| (In other words, it's not surprising to see vote updates with large
| margins, and it's not surprising to see vote updates with very large
| ratios of support between the candidates, but it is surprising to see
| vote updates which are both).

This is extremely odd statistically, but it is extremely easily
explained by the situation in the U.S.

First fact: in the U.S., a "Voting district" in the presidential
elections is a county, most other countries in the world have
significantly smaller voting districts (I don't know whether there is
just one polling station in a county, whether the votes of all polling
stations are collected to a common place and counted together, or
whether the results are counted locally but reported to a county voting
official who waits with reporting until he has all relevant data).
County sizes in the U.S. have exponential distribution rather than a
bell curve distribution.

In Wisconsin, the county containing Milwaukee has more voters than
several of the small county bundled together. Similarly, Minnesota has
two counties with large population.

In contrast, in Germany, voting districts typically have a size of 1,000
- 3,000 voters, and voting districts report their results directly to
the national tally, so this size anomaly does not exist in Germany.


Second fact, the voting patterns in most elections in most coutnries in
the world have nothing to do with statistical uniformity: cities vote
significantly different than "rural" wards.
This was more extreme in the 2020 Presidentails than usual: "Rural"
counties report 80% Trump, "City" ward" report 80% Biden, "suburb" wards
report 50/50.

Given the extreme size difference in voting districts, it is completeley
expected that "rural" wards report results earlier than "city" wards.
Our of these two facts, it is perfectly natural and expected that Trump
was leading in the early counting, when mostly rural counties reported
their results. It is also perfectly natural that Milwaukee reports
results significantly later than the rural counties, and that the
Milwaukee results has massive mardings for Biden.

So the Answer is: Yes, for somebody who does not know antyhing about the
US voting system, it is extremely surprising to see such late massive
vote swings, but for anybody who posesses a brain and understands enough
of the US vote counting (as is reported in TV and internet), these
results are not mysterious or suspicious.

Op woensdag 2 december 2020 om 09:42:30 UTC+1 schreef Rolf Mantel:
Am 02.12.2020 um 02:39 schrieb AMuzi:
On 12/1/2020 4:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's a paper which to statisticians, especially those with practical
experience, is a thing of beauty:
https://votepatternanalysis.substack...anomalies-2020
Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020

There are too many anomalies to wish away. They all have the same
objectionable features and outcomes.

I've been trying for 2 weeks to explain those numbers to sympathetic
people whose eyes glaze over. Your average guy is shut out from the
data, the analyses and simple graphs generally.
Let's take just this one sentence in the preface:
| (In other words, it's not surprising to see vote updates with large
| margins, and it's not surprising to see vote updates with very large
| ratios of support between the candidates, but it is surprising to see
| vote updates which are both).

This is extremely odd statistically, but it is extremely easily
explained by the situation in the U.S.

First fact: in the U.S., a "Voting district" in the presidential
elections is a county, most other countries in the world have
significantly smaller voting districts (I don't know whether there is
just one polling station in a county, whether the votes of all polling
stations are collected to a common place and counted together, or
whether the results are counted locally but reported to a county voting
official who waits with reporting until he has all relevant data).
County sizes in the U.S. have exponential distribution rather than a
bell curve distribution.

In Wisconsin, the county containing Milwaukee has more voters than
several of the small county bundled together. Similarly, Minnesota has
two counties with large population.

In contrast, in Germany, voting districts typically have a size of 1,000
- 3,000 voters, and voting districts report their results directly to
the national tally, so this size anomaly does not exist in Germany.


Second fact, the voting patterns in most elections in most coutnries in
the world have nothing to do with statistical uniformity: cities vote
significantly different than "rural" wards.
This was more extreme in the 2020 Presidentails than usual: "Rural"
counties report 80% Trump, "City" ward" report 80% Biden, "suburb" wards
report 50/50.

Given the extreme size difference in voting districts, it is completeley
expected that "rural" wards report results earlier than "city" wards.
Our of these two facts, it is perfectly natural and expected that Trump
was leading in the early counting, when mostly rural counties reported
their results. It is also perfectly natural that Milwaukee reports
results significantly later than the rural counties, and that the
Milwaukee results has massive mardings for Biden.

So the Answer is: Yes, for somebody who does not know antyhing about the
US voting system, it is extremely surprising to see such late massive
vote swings, but for anybody who posesses a brain and understands enough
of the US vote counting (as is reported in TV and internet), these
results are not mysterious or suspicious.

The problem is that everyone interpret it to his own agenda what makes explaining it rationally almost useless. This is the story of almost the whole election campaign what makes it very confusing and not only for me. They US media didn't made it easier; main stream or (a)social. On election day a Dutch reporter covering the election asked a lady on her way to the polling station whom she is going to vote for. She answered 'I don't know yet'. WTF?

Lou

On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 10:01:14 AM UTC, wrote:
Op woensdag 2 december 2020 om 09:42:30 UTC+1 schreef Rolf Mantel:
Am 02.12.2020 um 02:39 schrieb AMuzi:
On 12/1/2020 4:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's a paper which to statisticians, especially those with practical
experience, is a thing of beauty:
https://votepatternanalysis.substack...anomalies-2020
Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020

There are too many anomalies to wish away. They all have the same
objectionable features and outcomes.

I've been trying for 2 weeks to explain those numbers to sympathetic
people whose eyes glaze over. Your average guy is shut out from the
data, the analyses and simple graphs generally.
Let's take just this one sentence in the preface:
| (In other words, it's not surprising to see vote updates with large
| margins, and it's not surprising to see vote updates with very large
| ratios of support between the candidates, but it is surprising to see
| vote updates which are both).

This is extremely odd statistically, but it is extremely easily
explained by the situation in the U.S.

First fact: in the U.S., a "Voting district" in the presidential
elections is a county, most other countries in the world have
significantly smaller voting districts (I don't know whether there is
just one polling station in a county, whether the votes of all polling
stations are collected to a common place and counted together, or
whether the results are counted locally but reported to a county voting
official who waits with reporting until he has all relevant data).
County sizes in the U.S. have exponential distribution rather than a
bell curve distribution.

In Wisconsin, the county containing Milwaukee has more voters than
several of the small county bundled together. Similarly, Minnesota has
two counties with large population.

In contrast, in Germany, voting districts typically have a size of 1,000
- 3,000 voters, and voting districts report their results directly to
the national tally, so this size anomaly does not exist in Germany.


Second fact, the voting patterns in most elections in most coutnries in
the world have nothing to do with statistical uniformity: cities vote
significantly different than "rural" wards.
This was more extreme in the 2020 Presidentails than usual: "Rural"
counties report 80% Trump, "City" ward" report 80% Biden, "suburb" wards
report 50/50.

Given the extreme size difference in voting districts, it is completeley
expected that "rural" wards report results earlier than "city" wards.
Our of these two facts, it is perfectly natural and expected that Trump
was leading in the early counting, when mostly rural counties reported
their results. It is also perfectly natural that Milwaukee reports
results significantly later than the rural counties, and that the
Milwaukee results has massive mardings for Biden.

So the Answer is: Yes, for somebody who does not know antyhing about the
US voting system, it is extremely surprising to see such late massive
vote swings, but for anybody who posesses a brain and understands enough
of the US vote counting (as is reported in TV and internet), these
results are not mysterious or suspicious.
The problem is that everyone interpret it to his own agenda what makes explaining it rationally almost useless. This is the story of almost the whole election campaign what makes it very confusing and not only for me. They US media didn't made it easier; main stream or (a)social. On election day a Dutch reporter covering the election asked a lady on her way to the polling station whom she is going to vote for. She answered 'I don't know yet'. WTF?

Lou

I've been in lots of elections around the world, as a voter, as a speechwriter for candidates, as a policy advisor, as a pollster, as a communications specialist both inside and outside campaigns, and for a variety of parties, and between elections as a consultant to parties, for instance I was the Liberal Party's man on proportional voting, which I had studied in Israel. To me it is all just grist to the mill, same as marketing liquor or toothpaste; I'm merely a polymathic mill, a businessman with a talent for extracting such meaning as there is in uncertainties and obscurities, and presenting it to best advantage.

But I'm afraid Rolf's certainties utterly escape me, and I ascribe them to the fact that he is German (they do elections right in Germany) and lives in an ivory tower, or perhaps he's reacting personally to me finding his obstinacy on Darwin inadequate. Whatever the cause, those statistics are deeply troubling until fully explained -- or, alternatively, their inexplicability is admitted, when the implication of crookery becomes a near-certainty. None of this is helped by Andrew's point that people's eyes glaze over...

I'm also amazed that Rolf thinks the mainstream media in the USA is reliable. It isn't. It is clearly in the tank for Biden.

Andre Jute
with the thousand yard stare

Am 02.12.2020 um 14:17 schrieb Andre Jute:

But I'm afraid Rolf's certainties utterly escape me, and I ascribe
them to the fact that he is German (they do elections right in
Germany)

As you are evidently not a statistician or a mathematician, please let
me re-phrase my analysis in simple words.

The paper says "if everything were random, there would be small and
large wards, and there would be wards strongly for one candidate and
wards strongly for another candidate. The results of this election
don't show this typical random pattern (is there something fishy?)"

I say "The US election system sets up large wards in cities and small
wards outside cities (in most states; I believe New Hampshire uses
electoral wards significantly smaller than county size, so they can
report the "earliest election results" from a village with 10 families)."
I say "The current voter preference is clearly different in large cities
than outside."
So we have a correlation that is outside the statistical analysis, so
the situation is not fishy but can be explained by a link outside the
realm of statistics.

I'm also amazed that Rolf thinks the mainstream media in the USA is
reliable.

When CNN reports "in-person results from County xxx are out" and fox
reports "in-person results from county xxx are out", I guess that they
are more likley right rather than wrong.
If you would now tell me that in fact the results are reported by small
wards rather than by county (in Pennsilvania, Wisconsin or Georgia),
that would be extremely surprising to me, and I don't think that any
political bias is hidden behind these statements.

On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 8:42:30 AM UTC, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 02.12.2020 um 02:39 schrieb AMuzi:
On 12/1/2020 4:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's a paper which to statisticians, especially those with practical
experience, is a thing of beauty:
https://votepatternanalysis.substack...anomalies-2020
Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020

There are too many anomalies to wish away. They all have the same
objectionable features and outcomes.

I've been trying for 2 weeks to explain those numbers to sympathetic
people whose eyes glaze over. Your average guy is shut out from the
data, the analyses and simple graphs generally.
Let's take just this one sentence in the preface:
| (In other words, it's not surprising to see vote updates with large
| margins, and it's not surprising to see vote updates with very large
| ratios of support between the candidates, but it is surprising to see
| vote updates which are both).

This is extremely odd statistically, but it is extremely easily
explained by the situation in the U.S.

First fact: in the U.S., a "Voting district" in the presidential
elections is a county, most other countries in the world have
significantly smaller voting districts (I don't know whether there is
just one polling station in a county, whether the votes of all polling
stations are collected to a common place and counted together, or
whether the results are counted locally but reported to a county voting
official who waits with reporting until he has all relevant data).
County sizes in the U.S. have exponential distribution rather than a
bell curve distribution.

In Wisconsin, the county containing Milwaukee has more voters than
several of the small county bundled together. Similarly, Minnesota has
two counties with large population.

In contrast, in Germany, voting districts typically have a size of 1,000
- 3,000 voters, and voting districts report their results directly to
the national tally, so this size anomaly does not exist in Germany.


Second fact, the voting patterns in most elections in most coutnries in
the world have nothing to do with statistical uniformity: cities vote
significantly different than "rural" wards.
This was more extreme in the 2020 Presidentails than usual: "Rural"
counties report 80% Trump, "City" ward" report 80% Biden, "suburb" wards
report 50/50.

Given the extreme size difference in voting districts, it is completeley
expected that "rural" wards report results earlier than "city" wards.
Our of these two facts, it is perfectly natural and expected that Trump
was leading in the early counting, when mostly rural counties reported
their results. It is also perfectly natural that Milwaukee reports
results significantly later than the rural counties, and that the
Milwaukee results has massive mardings for Biden.

So the Answer is: Yes, for somebody who does not know antyhing about the
US voting system, it is extremely surprising to see such late massive
vote swings, but for anybody who posesses a brain and understands enough
of the US vote counting (as is reported in TV and internet), these
results are not mysterious or suspicious.

So, Rolf, your answer to the suspicions raised by the irregularities is the irregularities themselves:
This was more extreme in the 2020 Presidentails than usual: "Rural"
counties report 80% Trump, "City" ward" report 80% Biden, "suburb" wards
report 50/50.
Really? You expect us to swallow this? Actually, since I don't have a dog in this race, I might have given your argument house room as an intellectual curiosity, like your attachment to Darwin (in fact, you're more Darwinian than Charles Darwin ever was), but you cannot honestly expect Americans, whose economic future hangs on this election, to swallow such sophistry in the presence of so many other additional indicators of a highly irregular election: sudden cessations of counting, an announced resumption at a particular time, resumption before the announced time by the partisans of only one party in the absence of the invigilators of the other party, boxes of votes inordinately heavily weighted towards one party -- and only one party -- arrived from unknown destinations in the middle of the night, etc.

Andre Jute
No circular arguments from me!

On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 2:24:16 PM UTC, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 02.12.2020 um 14:17 schrieb Andre Jute:

But I'm afraid Rolf's certainties utterly escape me, and I ascribe
them to the fact that he is German (they do elections right in
Germany)
As you are evidently not a statistician or a mathematician, please let
me re-phrase my analysis in simple words.

Yeah, I got paid in seven figures in private industry, where there are no second chances, for my ability to count on an abacus. Stick your ad hominem up your jumper, Rolf. Since both your sense of humour and your vernacular English are a bit short, you should enquire about thecolloquial meaning of the previous sentence.

The paper says "if everything were random, there would be small and
large wards, and there would be wards strongly for one candidate and
wards strongly for another candidate. The results of this election
don't show this typical random pattern (is there something fishy?)"

I say "The US election system sets up large wards in cities and small
wards outside cities (in most states; I believe New Hampshire uses
electoral wards significantly smaller than county size, so they can
report the "earliest election results" from a village with 10 families)."
I say "The current voter preference is clearly different in large cities
than outside."
So we have a correlation that is outside the statistical analysis, so
the situation is not fishy but can be explained by a link outside the
realm of statistics.
I'm also amazed that Rolf thinks the mainstream media in the USA is
reliable.
When CNN reports "in-person results from County xxx are out" and fox
reports "in-person results from county xxx are out", I guess that they
are more likley right rather than wrong.

So you swallowed the KoolAid. Funny, you struck me as more of a Rachel Maddow listener.

If you would now tell me that in fact the results are reported by small
wards rather than by county (in Pennsilvania, Wisconsin or Georgia),
that would be extremely surprising to me, and I don't think that any
political bias is hidden behind these statements.

Nope, I didn't say that. What I'm pointing out for the second time now is that some of the most egregious irregularities happened between the centre and the outlying areas under cover of darkness. (I suspect that in Germany such an irregularity would lead to a new election; I can certainly name countries where I have experience of elections where the same would be true.)

I find it very odd that someone with the privilege of experiencing clean elections anywhere shouldn't wish the same for the Americans.

Andre Jute
In cases of doubt, trust the numbers