Mathematical impossibilities may be what trips up Democrat plans

The problem with the lame argument that many republicans wanted to split the ticket is that Trump enjoyed well north of 90% approval within the party so, the math on that could never work

Besides, there aren’t enough mental cases who did that causing the results as they are...

It wouldn’t be up to the governors, it wouldbe up to the legislatures to sign off on what the SOS’s certify or to intervene and appoint their own electors if they feel fraud was done. The Republicans took the legislatures in their houses and senates. Simple logic suggests that the real vote for president should have matched the rough same percentages by which the Republicans now rule in the house and senate in those states. If the vote is truly in doubt they must throw it out.

Now grand compromises could be offered where the electoral votes are split between the Republicans and Democrats by the same amount that they are represented in a given state house.

And I think that is how the courts should ultimately come down. They have to know by shear math there was cheating but who did what...that is the rub...so the solution comes down to dividing the electors by means of representation of the parties in their respective states. So the courts can offer a grand solution....throw out the votes in the entire disputed states or offer a solution by which the electors are assigned by means of the percentages of elected assembly men in each state which theoretically should match the TRUE VOTES FOR TRUMP!

That is how to expose whether or not fraud truly occurred in a given state. Watch the reactions to the offered compromise.

The numbers here are not statistical anomalies or improbabilities. They are indefeasible. They are statistical impossibilities. They cannot be ratioed logically. The voting pattern is isolated to specific states, not indicative of a national backlash against the president. Only in states where the vote was decisive - swing states — does this voting behavior manifest itself. Such is the case too with states where turnout topped 100% - another statistical impossibility, when you consider that countries with mandatory voting requirements (i.e., Australia)never top 90%. No rational mathematician could argue against this, at least one who is being intellectually honest

“Can any one point me to the data they are citing that violate Benford’s law? The tweets linked in this article have some hard to read graphics and no links to underlying data. There are enough conspiracy nutters out there that it is hard to believe any of this without digging deeper. Otherwise, we will end up chasing red herrings that lead to no where until time runs out.”

The way to get this would be to go to the SOS sites for each state (pick a sample of contested states, clearly red states and clearly blue states.)

Then get the vote totals by precinct or ward. Pull the first digit off of everyone’s vote totals and plot them. If the Benford anomaly shows up for Biden in just the contested states, it’s a pretty good indicator something is fishy.

One other thought regarding replicating the Benford analysis. Maybe county vote counts is a better measure. Benford analysis is supposed to work better across counts from items that cross multiple orders of magnitude. I would expect the number of voters in wards or precincts to be fairly uniform while counties have wildly different sizes.

Another way to make the Benford analysis more persuasive would be to find that Biden and others votes follow the distribution in non-contested states.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.