All of the allegations listed on this site have fairly logical explanations when given context.
Republicans pushed against mail in ballots hard, so it makes sense that Harris would do better with mail ins and trump would do better with early voting. It also makes sense that trump voters mainly cared about the presidential election compared to Harris voters. It also makes sense that Harris underperformed as Democrats didn’t get to participate in a primary. Basically it makes sense for there to be abnormalities in an abnormal election, that doesn’t mean there’s “statistical evidence of probable tampering”.
Plus Trump, in his rambling, said something that [heavily implies tampering with vote counting machines
Right… But this means that we would be questioning trump’s honesty based on assuming that trump is being honest on this particular subject. He’s a troll who likes to stir the shit and make people assume he’s more competent than he really is, the same as musk.
It does not behoove progressives to question the reliability of elections without real evidence. Having people question the reliability of elections only serves conservative agenda of making it harder for people to vote.
Abnormal Clustering: In contrast to Election Day voting, Early Vote results display an unusual pattern: once approximately 250 ballots have been processed a visible shift is observed, resulting in a high degree of clustering and unusual uniformity. This is a departure from expected human voting behavior.
This is not logically explained by an “abnormal election”.
It’s also not really explaining much either. They don’t give examples of other elections to compare it too, and their own methodology is lackluster.
They are basically saying that after approx 250 votes trump started to pull ahead, which is to be expected as a lot of early Dem voters were mail ins.
To be honest it just seems like they are trying to purposely confuse normal phenomena with statistical diction, and alluding to claims without providing context.
Usually when making claims this grand you would also want evidence to match it. You’d also want to provide an example to compare it to previous elections utilizing the same methodology.
All of the allegations listed on this site have fairly logical explanations when given context.
Republicans pushed against mail in ballots hard, so it makes sense that Harris would do better with mail ins and trump would do better with early voting. It also makes sense that trump voters mainly cared about the presidential election compared to Harris voters. It also makes sense that Harris underperformed as Democrats didn’t get to participate in a primary. Basically it makes sense for there to be abnormalities in an abnormal election, that doesn’t mean there’s “statistical evidence of probable tampering”.
Right… But this means that we would be questioning trump’s honesty based on assuming that trump is being honest on this particular subject. He’s a troll who likes to stir the shit and make people assume he’s more competent than he really is, the same as musk.
It does not behoove progressives to question the reliability of elections without real evidence. Having people question the reliability of elections only serves conservative agenda of making it harder for people to vote.
This is not logically explained by an “abnormal election”.
It’s also not really explaining much either. They don’t give examples of other elections to compare it too, and their own methodology is lackluster.
They are basically saying that after approx 250 votes trump started to pull ahead, which is to be expected as a lot of early Dem voters were mail ins.
To be honest it just seems like they are trying to purposely confuse normal phenomena with statistical diction, and alluding to claims without providing context.
Usually when making claims this grand you would also want evidence to match it. You’d also want to provide an example to compare it to previous elections utilizing the same methodology.