Patrick Byrne Brilliantly Explains Why It’s Mathematically Impossible That Katie Hobbs Won Arizona
In Detroit, (point at the far right below) we had to get to 23:1to get to 1×10^114 in a similarly close election. Now the adjudication at something like 1.66x off the curve is significant (250k/150k), suspicious and would be election changing. It should also be a sampling of the entire voting base, but his claim of 1×10^-115 assumes an equal distribution of adjudication rather than allowing for a potential bias in sampling of the ballots for adjudication.
Were all rejected signature validations considered adjudicated when they were accepted by the next of 3 levels, or was adjudication only applied to ballots?
Were inner city Democrat voters more likely to require adjudication?
Was there some unstated problem with mail-in ballots being read by scanners causing a bias toward mail-in adjudication?
As an example of what I mean, Pima county in my previous post on election fraud had 1.7:1 Biden/Trump for mail in ballots which places those very close to the ratio of 1.66:1 reported for Hobbs/Lake adjudication. If the adjudication were primarily mail-in, that would be an expected ratio for Pima county. NOTE: There is no reason we should assume that ONLY mail ins would be adjudicated, this is only conjecture.
Below is what Detroit looked like – the point on the far right at 23:1 and it is patently ridiculous fraud. This distribution was 14 times more severe than Katie Hobbs adjudication ratio in the video, and I came to almost the exact same probability claimed in the video. Basically, I think the Byrne has missed the mark by a bit and while I didn’t see his methods, his comments indicate that he didn’t look at sub sampling of the statewide distribution to look for sampling bias.
In the Georgia example below, I look at the change in elections over 8 years and found that every single newly added vote, voted Democrat. Now if they hadn’t added 400,000 more voters that wouldn’t be as problematic but when you add an entire city sized block of voters and 100% of them vote Democrat — you have statistical proof of obvious fraud. Instead of 1.66:1 of Hobbs/Lake, this is basically an infinite ratio. Again, in this Georgia example, there can be no sampling bias as 100 percent of the change in vote is used, and the ratio was basically infinite. This is still the best statistical proof of vote fraud I’ve seen anywhere.
And those are examples of proof of vote fraud.
In the video, rather than proof of fraud, I question whether the video is proof of some bias toward Democrats needing adjudication for mail-in or some other leftist special-needs reason. Perhaps a significant quantity of the known-fake signatures were sent for adjudication, I don’t know. Fraud is definitely implied however.
This is another reason why ballots and voters should not be treated differently. Besides the unconstitutionality, it makes fraud detection even more difficult. Identification free mail-in is a crime waiting to happen and there is a reason that only one party likes it.
7 thoughts on “Statistics On Arizona”
Clear and obvious fraud.
Reading on Twitter, I finally realize that not all keyboards are created equally.
Matthew and Jeff: When he talks about the statistics of coin flipping, Byrne is making the unwarranted assumption that Hobbs and Lake supporters were equally likely to vote via an absentee ballot. In 2020, Trump belittled the threat from COVID and encouraged his supporters to vote in person, while Biden did not. 538.com presented evidence from 13 states in 2020 that separated reported the outcomes of Election Day voting from absentee/mail in voting. Trump won or tied the Election Day vote in EVERY state including tying in Delaware and Connecticut and winning Maryland by 18%; but won the absentee vote in every state by a minimum of 18% (Oklahoma).
PA Election Day: Biden -32%. PA Absentee: Biden +54%. Diff 85%
GA Election Day: Biden -23%. GA Absentee: Biden +30%. Diff 53%
They show data for AZ, but the state combines the results from absentee ballots (which can need adjudicating) with early in-person voting (which doesn’t). Byrne’s Cyber Ninjas were ignorant of this.
So, the simplest explanation for the fact that Hobbs won 62% of the adjudicated ballots is that 62% of mail-in went for Hobbs and ballots for each candidate were equally likely to need survive adjudication. In these 13 states in 2020, Biden won a average of 67% of the absentee vote. So if we assume the same thing happened in AZ in 2020, there is room to assume that ballots for Lake from the less-well educated voters needed adjudication more often, bringing Hobbs winning percentage in adjudicated ballots down from the 67% that voted absentee for her to the 62% of adjudicated ballots she actually won. (:<)).
Byrne's analysis is meaningless.
I believe that it’s the entire point of my post.
However, that means adjudication only happened to mail in as the final ratio ended up 1:1. This seems unlikely as well. That means it is worth questioning why the adjudication ratio matched the mail in ratio.
Please forgive me for not reading past your subtitle: Patrick Byrnes Why It’s Mathematically Impossible that Katie Hobbs Won Arizona.
Since we both agree that Byrne is spreading misinformation, now all we need to agree upon is that the less well educated Republicans were more likely to screw up and mail in ballots that needed adjudication. I’ve taken to calling them the Know Nothing Party with parallel to the one that existed for a few years before the Civil War. Speaking of civil wars, experts claim we haven’t been as badly divided since then. Just joking.
One possibility is that the oldest voters who registered decades ago are more likely to have their signatures change or deteriorate over time. I’m sorry to see that your voter ID referendum failed, because this is the best solution to the problem. For those over 65, an expired ID will suffice. The Dems will work their tails off to make sure everyone has such an ID, and that will be to everyone’s benefit.
For absentee voting, it would be nice to have a valid ID in my smart phone too. I can authorize at least six figure transactions securely over the Internet, but I can’t identify myself to the government???
The subtitle was the title of the article I linked, not a sub. But we do agree that there is a problem with his conclusion. It’s a shame that it got featured on large news sites. Spreading misinformation is a silly comment, as it is being used by leftist dumfux to determine what is misinformation. Like the mRNA vax isn’t hurting people and masks do something.
Do you see that the 1.66:1 magnitude of the ratio is also very likely a problem in a 1:1 election? It likely requires over 95% of the adjudication to happen only to the mail-in ballots. This doesn’t sound right.
Just fyi, my first title for this article was “How Not to Do Statistics”. There is a piece of concern in his findings that seems valid however.
You need to read my other comments and the post to see why I think so.