Column E and F are the two worst things done to us by Edison Research. They had the real data, but instead of reporting the actual vote results, they used these columns to give us a rounded result to 0.1% accuracy. Rounding confuses chicken brains … badly and it hides actual problems with the data. Watch the magic, but if you fall for it, I’ve just told you which class you go in.

The edison data was reported as total votes times a number for each candidate. Columns E and f are thre number that you need to multiply tmes the total votes to determine what percent goes to each candidate.

0.53 times 123,455 votes equals 65,431 votes. If the 0.53 doesn’t change to 0.531 you get the exact same ratio of votes. In a total count vote reporting, the same exact ratio is a statistical impossibility .

It isn’t public data normally. The NYT left it on a site that someone disclosed/discovered. I Can’t find the same data for 2022. I contacted Edison and tried to buy it two times but they will not reply.

Because it is not public, the metadata is not available to my knowledge. ALL of the graphs showing the future impossible ‘biden’ late-night jumps cannot exist unless someone gets the data. I figured 20k or maybe 50 would get it done but the deep state won’t even talk.

You know, since Steve mc got old, all of the stats blogs kind of died. He was a leftie tho so when this stuff came up he was disinterested. I’m too busy doing money stuff. I can make huge cash for my time these days because we have a foundation, it is very hard to justify even a single day of climate stats.

Nice data, quite explains why they do the fractional thing. They (who ever They be) are just making it up all night long. As long as they balance out the total vote with total ballots (that is random names from the ERIC enhanced list of registered voters) the results will pass an intense electronic audit. But it takes time, can’t always finish by midnight on the day of counting.

Ray

NB. I do my best to be truthful, happy to have reasoned criticism.

I tried showing this to my middle aged Doctor daughter ( years of tertiary education) but her eyes glazed over and didn’t want to focus on all the numbers in the shaded yellow bits.
How can they be the same?? I ask.

End of discussion.

If someone waived a set of numbers in front of my face that discredit something I hold dear, my first question would be “where do these come from and are they authentic?”

Jeff has been as honest as Steve Mc, so I trust his authenticity. How does one jump this hurdle with people who don’t know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

“If someone waived a set of numbers in front of my face that discredit something I hold dear, my first question would be “where do these come from and are they authentic?”

Looks odd. What is the source for columns E and F?
Rounding problem aside – where are the actual votes for each candidate? On the other tabs? Surely actual vote counts are what decide results rather than subsidiary calculations?
Have you got this actual spreadsheet?

I made a table similar to that spreadsheet (but more complete) from the data scraper i wrote in R about 1 week after the 2020 election. You can reproduce the same columns in the spreadsheet using the code linked here numerous times. In fact, For a moment, I thought he used my code.

Without being cocky, my analysis was more sophisticated, resulting in the successful error-free identification of a few key problem areas across 50 states. I did not even consider falling for the rounding error nonsense in this video and spent a fair bit of time trying to explain it to Steve m back in November 2020. I even had a reader try to guest post here on it in December 2020.

It would be incredibly embarrassing to have gone down this path, and I would likely apologize and be forced to close the blog after 15 years of math here. That is how silly this is. I would hang up my math card and walk home, i think it is worth a post on why – now that others are seeing the problem.

Hey Jeff,
I am surprised you are so unhappy with the maths of this rumble piece that ‘curious’ posted. I have just rewatched the video.
What I got out of the video was that ‘ the repetitive entry of data with the same percentages signifies that an algorithm is being used’ .
I take this to mean that the vote tallies are not real. The supposed tallies being shown are computer generated tallies.

( NB. In the old days I never posted on your blogg, I visited to read and learn. )

Much of the conclusions here are mathilised. ( mystified with math terms) . For instance in the video the gentleman says the results are not ‘organic’. F….me (excuse my french), this is serious stuff. I have to presume he means this tally counting is bullshit, they pissing in our ears etc.
You are never going to convince any ( of the people that don’t know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere) of the hoards that need to know the truth.

Remember how polite you all were over the hockey stick etc and they weren’t even doing science, they had an agenda.

End of rant.

I posted the above, I’m not dumb but my maths is not anywhere near Id and Steve Mc. I’m here to hear the math TRUTH.

Words like ‘organic’ don’t help. If what is happening here in the tallies is ‘unreal’ or fraudulent’ then tell me in simple language.

Or are you all likely to be carted off to the DC Gulag if you speak honestly and bluntly.

What they are seeing is an artifact of rounding and claiming it is somehow not organic. In reality it is just rounding in the data. If you round to 0.1 and the data only changes by 0.001 then you don’t see the 0.1 decimal change.

I have a government census report that I give in $1000 increments. No other level may be entered.

My cost is $800 so I round and write $1000

then $11 more is entered so $811

I write $1000 again

then $33 more happens so $844

I write $1000 a third time.

that is what is happening

I don’t know if it helps but Roman M upvoted the post, because as a statistics professor he understood it right away. Also, another math guy has commented.

I kind of need this explained.

The edison data was reported as total votes times a number for each candidate. Columns E and f are thre number that you need to multiply tmes the total votes to determine what percent goes to each candidate.

0.53 times 123,455 votes equals 65,431 votes. If the 0.53 doesn’t change to 0.531 you get the exact same ratio of votes. In a total count vote reporting, the same exact ratio is a statistical impossibility .

This fools people. Even statistically good ones:.

Got it.

Shouldn’t that be explained in the data set and of what value is it to round that number if it is WRONG?

It isn’t public data normally. The NYT left it on a site that someone disclosed/discovered. I Can’t find the same data for 2022. I contacted Edison and tried to buy it two times but they will not reply.

Because it is not public, the metadata is not available to my knowledge. ALL of the graphs showing the future impossible ‘biden’ late-night jumps cannot exist unless someone gets the data. I figured 20k or maybe 50 would get it done but the deep state won’t even talk.

Very interesting !!!!!!

You know, since Steve mc got old, all of the stats blogs kind of died. He was a leftie tho so when this stuff came up he was disinterested. I’m too busy doing money stuff. I can make huge cash for my time these days because we have a foundation, it is very hard to justify even a single day of climate stats.

Nice data, quite explains why they do the fractional thing. They (who ever They be) are just making it up all night long. As long as they balance out the total vote with total ballots (that is random names from the ERIC enhanced list of registered voters) the results will pass an intense electronic audit. But it takes time, can’t always finish by midnight on the day of counting.

Ray

NB. I do my best to be truthful, happy to have reasoned criticism.

I tried showing this to my middle aged Doctor daughter ( years of tertiary education) but her eyes glazed over and didn’t want to focus on all the numbers in the shaded yellow bits.

How can they be the same?? I ask.

End of discussion.

If someone waived a set of numbers in front of my face that discredit something I hold dear, my first question would be “where do these come from and are they authentic?”

Jeff has been as honest as Steve Mc, so I trust his authenticity. How does one jump this hurdle with people who don’t know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

Ray

Honesty is the highest compliment a blogger can receive.

Thank you.

“If someone waived a set of numbers in front of my face that discredit something I hold dear, my first question would be “where do these come from and are they authentic?”

Same here

Looks odd. What is the source for columns E and F?

Rounding problem aside – where are the actual votes for each candidate? On the other tabs? Surely actual vote counts are what decide results rather than subsidiary calculations?

Have you got this actual spreadsheet?

https://rumble.com/v23piq0-smoking-gun-of-election-rigging-is-in-the-edison-data.-algorithms-proved..html

I made a table similar to that spreadsheet (but more complete) from the data scraper i wrote in R about 1 week after the 2020 election. You can reproduce the same columns in the spreadsheet using the code linked here numerous times. In fact, For a moment, I thought he used my code.

Without being cocky, my analysis was more sophisticated, resulting in the successful error-free identification of a few key problem areas across 50 states. I did not even consider falling for the rounding error nonsense in this video and spent a fair bit of time trying to explain it to Steve m back in November 2020. I even had a reader try to guest post here on it in December 2020.

It would be incredibly embarrassing to have gone down this path, and I would likely apologize and be forced to close the blog after 15 years of math here. That is how silly this is. I would hang up my math card and walk home, i think it is worth a post on why – now that others are seeing the problem.

Hey Jeff,

I am surprised you are so unhappy with the maths of this rumble piece that ‘curious’ posted. I have just rewatched the video.

What I got out of the video was that ‘ the repetitive entry of data with the same percentages signifies that an algorithm is being used’ .

I take this to mean that the vote tallies are not real. The supposed tallies being shown are computer generated tallies.

( NB. In the old days I never posted on your blogg, I visited to read and learn. )

Much of the conclusions here are mathilised. ( mystified with math terms) . For instance in the video the gentleman says the results are not ‘organic’. F….me (excuse my french), this is serious stuff. I have to presume he means this tally counting is bullshit, they pissing in our ears etc.

You are never going to convince any ( of the people that don’t know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere) of the hoards that need to know the truth.

Remember how polite you all were over the hockey stick etc and they weren’t even doing science, they had an agenda.

End of rant.

I posted the above, I’m not dumb but my maths is not anywhere near Id and Steve Mc. I’m here to hear the math TRUTH.

Words like ‘organic’ don’t help. If what is happening here in the tallies is ‘unreal’ or fraudulent’ then tell me in simple language.

Or are you all likely to be carted off to the DC Gulag if you speak honestly and bluntly.

Ray

Ray,

What they are seeing is an artifact of rounding and claiming it is somehow not organic. In reality it is just rounding in the data. If you round to 0.1 and the data only changes by 0.001 then you don’t see the 0.1 decimal change.

It tricks people more than I realized.

Maybe this works.

I have a government census report that I give in $1000 increments. No other level may be entered.

My cost is $800 so I round and write $1000

then $11 more is entered so $811

I write $1000 again

then $33 more happens so $844

I write $1000 a third time.

that is what is happening

I don’t know if it helps but Roman M upvoted the post, because as a statistics professor he understood it right away. Also, another math guy has commented.

When I use the term Organic it describes the sort of farming I do. What do you mathematicians mean when you use the term ‘organic’.

Ray

Organic, as in coming from natural processes vs artificial:

Curious, that is a wonderful video.

Ray