Continued from #129
This report is highly suggestive of software manipulation (FL) that gave the candidate an overall 7% advantage.
In order to more closely approximate the reported totals, it is necessary to give Wasserman Schultz 100% of the Black vote, and lower her support in other demographics. This projection is closer, but still does not match the reported totals (Figure 8).
Figure 8 - The reported totals exhibit a steeper increase from the smallest to the largest precincts than any combination of the actual votes.
No matter what percentages of the actual votes we distributed to the candidates, we were unable to replicate the reported results.
If the division of the votes is close to what we started with in Figure 7 and then a manufactured 3.5% increase in Wasserman Schultz’ results, and a manufactured 3.5% decrease in Canova’s results are input into the graph, then the reported totals can be replicated almost exactly (Figure 9).
This would seem to imply some kind of manipulation was necessary to obtain these results. It is possible that the reported results are based on demographic trends, but that those trends are being exaggerated in some way.
7% is about what most of the fake polls were giving hillary as her lead