Read on Twitter
Hey all, I just saw the stupidest "proof of voting fraud" by someone with a terrible Python script and I don't know if I should bother explicating all the mistakes he's making
Okay, the first thing you must understand about live election reports is that they are eventually consistent. County people are giving numbers to stringers who are reporting things in dozens of time each hour. Individual mistakes happen and get corrected over the night.
As a result, it's a really stupid assumption to look at two different timestamps like this:
T1: N votes Cand1: 50.3% Cand2: 47.8%
T2: N+M votes Cand1: 50.4% Cand2: 47.6%
And assume change is just from M new votes (not corrections in pool of N votes)
T1: N votes Cand1: 50.3% Cand2: 47.8%
T2: N+M votes Cand1: 50.4% Cand2: 47.6%
And assume change is just from M new votes (not corrections in pool of N votes)
It's also really stupid to think that you can reconstruct exactly what the total votes for each candidate look like at a specific point in time by multiplying the total votes by the ROUNDED percentage (floating point math is bad enough, but that on top of it)
Finally, it's really dumb to then compare your crappy calculation for a candidate at T2 to the crappy calculation at T1 and if they decline, assume this means the candidate's votes were stolen and add them to an accumulator of total stolen votes for the night.
But that's what these idiots are apparently citing as indisputable proof of election fraud. I can't even.
Basically, what they're doing is making stupid assumptions, working with heavily processed data like it's source material, and accumulating errors with each timestep and not realizing it.
Oh, and the code looks like this:
I don't even know WTF that floating point calculation in the predicate is for... anybody?
I don't even know WTF that floating point calculation in the predicate is for... anybody?
Oh, the mathematical symbols are from Emacs "pretty-mode" trying to make this look a little less horrible than it actually is
I figured out what the
if i != 0 and TrumpNow < TrumpThen and (TrumpThen - TrumpNow) > (0.00049999 * series[i]["votes"]) + 50:
Clearly, what happened is that his "OMG STOLEN VOTES" thing was getting triggered too much, so he ignores unless swing of 0.04% (?) + 50 (?) votes
if i != 0 and TrumpNow < TrumpThen and (TrumpThen - TrumpNow) > (0.00049999 * series[i]["votes"]) + 50:
Clearly, what happened is that his "OMG STOLEN VOTES" thing was getting triggered too much, so he ignores unless swing of 0.04% (?) + 50 (?) votes
Anyhow, I have wasted enough time on this. I am grateful to or maybe I should be resentful of @artimusclyde84 for first bringing this to my attention
And I'm spending my time doing this instead of reading Gideon the Ninth, so maybe I'm not so smart either
