Algorithms, Computers and Elections.

Watch this linked utube!!

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai at MIT gives this lecture.   If he has this right, our elections have been frauds manipulated by powerful people for about 20 years.  pl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztu5Y5obWP

Comments

[Sylvia1]

I did watch it and I need some math nerd to tell me if this result was preprogramed by the criteria selected. I especially refer to the gap between Trump votes and straight party voting. Wouldn't that increase the discrepancy as the number of Republican votes increased? I wondered about this but I am not very well schooled in math.

[Eliot]

Dr Shiva argues that as straight line Republican voting increases, you shouldn’t see more ballots that are marked individually for Biden (or Trump) it should remain consistent.

[Chicot]

Yes, as Eliot says, it should remain consistent and it did exactly that in the county which was hand-counted. Whatever it does, it shouldn't fall off at more or less exactly the same point in a linear fashion for different data sets. That is very suspicious. Would be interesting to see the same sort of analysis done for different counties in different states, where they allow these 2 types of voting.

[Lux]

Dr Shiva argues that as straight line Republican voting increases, you shouldn’t see more ballots that are marked individually for Biden (or Trump) it should remain consistent.
Posted by: Eliot | 12 November 2020 at 10:50 AM

Personally I stopped when he suggested: Don't worry about Math, to then present a rather startling graph. I love numbers, but graphwise databases are rather flexible depending on diverse factors or let say chosen focus? I should watch it to the very, very end? You did?

I am sure though that Larry Johnson will be able to explain matters to the weakmathics among us.

[JohnH]

It has been obvious that the US voting system has been an unverifiable black box ever since Bush vs. Gore and Bush vs. Kerry. Voting machines are produced by companies whose ownership is not public knowledge and whose agenda is unknown. And There could well be people or groups outside of these companies with technical skills, access to the software, and the motivation to create mischief.

By design of the system we cannot know if the system has been rigged. Nor can we tell if there are single, centralized manipulators or multiple, localized manipulators, each jockeying for advantage with the machines they have access to or with all the software for a given manufacturer.

The question is: why do neither of the two parties care about it? Democrats were quick to accept the results in 2000 and.2004 and not raise a stink or demand a transparent, auditable process afterwards. And Republicans haven’t cared either.

Curious!!! Has each been coopted by a promise to get their share of the spoils?

Verifiable systems are clearly possible. Curiously, it is Venezuela that uses one. Each electronic ballot produces a receipt , which each voter verifies and places in a receptacle where it can be counted. In a large, randomly selected number of precincts, paper receipts are publicly tallied and compared with machine results in the presence of representatives of the candidates. Tallies of the precincts are made public and sent to a central vote tabulation center, which publishes vote counts from each precinct.

Venezuela’s system was created as a reaction to a system that had been designed to give the appearance of democracy when in fact the two major parties had colluded to alternate years in power. We have no way of knowing if this is what happens in Washington, or whether outside, covert forces manage the results, or whether the will of the people is actually being reflected by the results.

In any case, it a shameful situation for a country with the audacity to declare itself the world’s greatest democracy.

[Fred]

"hate doesn't go in a straight line" An apt comment by Dr. Shiva's colleague. The Wayne County data is an eye opener. It would be interesting to see them do this same analysis to Washtenaw County.

Sylvia1, That's precisely what they are showing, the heavier the Republican district, the more the algorithm swaped votes. watch the intro of that video again, their explanation and example are pretty good.

[eakens]

How many ballots were marked only for Trump versus only for Biden, and nothing else.

[SteveF]

I'm not a maths nerd, just a computer programmer.
This looks like an algorithm that is in place to trigger after a certain Republican lead is achieved (they don't want to make it too obvious). Once triggered the algorithm transfers some individual votes from Trump to Biden.
As the Republican lead increases, the number of votes transferred also increases.
It's a sort of feedback loop that punishes trump as the Republicans do better.
One of the effects of the loop is to show Biden as an individual having significantly more votes than the democrats as a party.
Another possible effect is (I'm not certain on this one) is that it tends to push the votes for individuals towards a 50/50 split, because you can't take more from Trump than he's actually got. So in heavy Republican states, Trump individual votes can all be skewed to Biden, and Biden get's his own votes.
As I said, I'm not absolutely certain on this second effect, I may be wrong but it certainly looks like that.

[Eric Newhill]

Sylvia1,
No. What Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai lays out is not a mathematical artifact.

Eliot,
Correct. That is his argument. Assuming Trump ticked off a portion of conservatives with his personality, you'd assume that portion to be relatively similar across districts. Say, on average, 30% of conservatives/Republicans just couldn't handle Trump anymore (making up that figure out of thin air). Sure you'd see some republican heavy districts with 25% of non-straight party ballots for Biden, in other districts you'd see 35%, but basically you'd have a straight line average at 30% with various districts, as points, scattered around it.

That is not what we see, as Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai makes clear.

That said, maybe there is something else at work. Maybe as districts become Republican, the people become more concerned with a president presenting with a sophisticated image than Trump does.

However, I still tend to agree with him. As a professional analyst of "big data" I can tell you that it is extremely rare in nature/social sciences - like the never happens kind of rare - to see such a tight correlation as we do in the data he presents (the negative correlation between a district's % republicans and % of Biden votes).

It is also rare to the point of being just about impossible for such a phenomenon to begin to abruptly (at the point where a district's republic constituency hits 30%).

I further agree that it looks exactly like someone programmed the counting machines to use the same vote switching logic in all of the districts. This would be easy logic to code. I could do it myself in an afternoon in SQL or SAS and I'm not a professional coder, just a dilettante that has learned to code analytical software. I know my IT guys could do it easily in various coding languages.

So the mail-in voting things was always a red herring and good old fashioned counting machines were always the game.

Do the actual ballots still exist. Should be easy enough for the courts to assess the merits of Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai's analysis and then order a recount on "clean" machines.

Finally, I note that one district in MI has already admitted to counting issues that favored Biden. They said it was a "glitch" in the software. Software doesn't just develop glitches. Code is a physical thing; a script. It can't re-write itself. The glitch explanation is insulting.

[EEngineer]

Not bad, but 70 minutes for what an engineer would see in 70 seconds. He makes a lot of good points but should have shown more examples of non-skewed results. Not conclusive proof in and of itself but definitely the smoking gun needed to initiate a manual recount.

Using DOUBLE (float) instead of LONG (int) variable type is also a pretty basic no-no. Aside from allowing fractional values of votes it's just plain bigger (file size) and slower to process. Of course the first rule in cheating is to make thing so complicated that the hack can hide in the cruft. There's also the full employment angle for the programmer that is allowed to write spaghetti code. IE Wally in the Dilbert comic. There is actually a book titled "Software Exorcism" that explicitly describes the phenomenon.

[Barbara Ann]

I'd urge caution here for a variety of reasons, not least the fact that one can 'prove' anything with sufficient abuse of statistical methods. Also this guy seems to have an axe to grind over losing the MA Senate primary.

A refutation of Dr Shiva's rather bold conclusions is below, the key paragraph is as follows:

You’d expect this pattern any time Democrats are slightly more likely to vote Trump than they are to vote down-ballot Republicans, and if Republicans are more likely to vote down-ballot Republicans than they are to vote for Trump. No foul play involved, just two populations with voting preferences that get blended in each precinct based on relative size.

https://kabir-naim.medium.com/dr-shiva-ayyadurai-the-danger-of-data-charlatans-4f675ffe793c

[Laura Wilson]

Oh, please.

[Horace]

Why would anyone NOT cheat?

1) respect for rule of law
2) respect for constitutional governance of rule of law
3) respect for a quarter millennium of American tradition
4) fear of God's judgement
5) fear of legal punishment

The globalists and their socialist handmaidens have none of these. There might be a handful of low-level drones who fear #5, but those fears are overblown. Brenda Snipes was cheating down in Broward for 15 years (thanks Low Energy Jeb!) and merely got fired (finally).

IF they had the means, THEN they did cheat. Democratic forms of governance can produce good governance only when the electorate has a sufficient degree of shared political culture. The culture of most of the world (most Europeans included) is "not cheating outgroups when you can is morally equivalent to stealing from your own group and is therefore wrong."

[turcopolier]

Laura Wilson

Have you watched the video?

[turcopolier]

Barbara Ann

Why is Wayne County different?

[Eric Newhill]

Barbara Ann,
That "refutation" makes 0 sense from a statistical or mathematical standpoint. Open an Excel spreadsheet and play some numbers to test what that guy said. if you can make it work I'll be surprised. I read that piece earlier and tried it. Fail. Maybe your mileage will vary. His obvious hatred of conservatives is another give away.

[Harlan Easley]

I haven't watched the video yet. However, I do a little coding on the side as a side hustle.

The guys I respect say that there is no such thing as a Software Glitch. That software performs as coded or indicated and it is extremely easy to code for counters +1. A caveman could do it.

Any glitch is a red flag for fraud. Also, uploading an update the night before is a huge red flag since there will not be time to real time test for errors.

And last one guy was mocking the pay for a job advertised for Election Software job per hour as insultingly low.

My impression is the experts in the field of coding have little respect for the security of software in the electoral field. This is non-partisan viewpoint from what I can tell.

[GEORGE CHAMBERLAIN]

Yes, it demonstrates that it is highly, highly, highly likely there was fraud. Possibly enough to warrent an investigation.
What we need though is "stuff" we can carry into a courtroom if a Trump 2nd term is to prevail.
To trigger a hand recount.
An audit.

[Mark K Logan]

This guy reminds of Hari Seldon, who figured out human behavior can be precisely expressed in algorithms. The future could thereby be expressed in algorithms if it weren't for those Black Swan/Mule thingies which crop up from time to time, Genies who unzip their pants and urinate on the pillar of science.

I'm surprised to see the parties destroy their primary ballots though, even in one state. We could cease pretending those are elections but if calling them something else imperils State funding of party polling. Can't have that.

[Deap]

Doesn't take a mathematician to count how many times Fauci double-crossed Trump. He just did it again: https://redstate.com/bonchie/2020/11/12/dr-fauci-n278830

Query: would it be petty and spiteful, or pragmatic to fire his sorry little ass right now, knowing he will get rehired in January 2021. Or should Trump take a pass on this one.

[Diana L Croissant]

About a decade ago, I did sign up to count votes in the county where I was living at the time. I was impressed with the process at the time. We did not have some big vote counting machine doing most of the process. The computers were used where three people sat to verify signatures. They used state databases of signatures to compare what the state had against what appeared on the ballot. That was done first because there was no need to count the rest of the ballot if the signature was wrong. (Usually it was a parent signing for a child who was away at college.)

There was a table of counters going through sections of the ballot that allowed write-in. Those were tabulated by three people and compared and counted until all three agreed.

There were smaller machines that put the rest of the ballot through and tabulated the results.

I worked for two weeks counting votes since it took that time to go through a tedious process of verifying and merging the counts from each section of the ballot.

I am sorry to think that some company under a wealthy person with a definite desire for a certain outcome could be given the contract to do vote counting in any state, or in many states
All I know is that I am now very happy that Trump is fighting to verify the election results--or to prove they hare not accurate.

We are a "want it now" society. For something as important as our votes, we should be patient to ensure getting accurate results, even if it means taking more time.

As it is now, if nothing is done to make se feel that Biden really did win, I will be unable to use the word "President" before his name. The same should be true for people who dislike Trump.

[turcopolier]

George Chamberlain

The hand re-count in Georgia should tell us a lot.

[Barbara Ann]

Sir

I believe Wayne county is different because it is evidently a hard Dem county. From the graph (38:00 in the video) I could make out only 4 precincts with > 25% Republican voters. My recollection is that the negative slope pattern exhibited in the other counties Dr Shiva analyses all show this pattern beginning at at least the 20% R mark, so in Wayne the pattern is not there simply because there are not enough Republican voters for it to appear.

I think the phenomenon shown is just the tendency of Republicans to down vote R rather than for Trump alone. The choice of plot is (deliberately) misleading IMO. If the plot had been R down votes against votes for Trump (not Trump - R down votes, as it is) a flat trend is indeed what you would expect. This would be chicanery at the best of times, in the current climate it is downright dangerous.

Eric

The plot is X against Y-X which must show a negative slope. I can only assume an MIT PhD knows this full well. I would guess he is motivated by simple self promotion (notice his book on the bookshelf in the background?).

All of this does not rule out electoral shenanigans in Michigan or elsewhere and I could not agree more with Dr Shiva's wider points re the audit-ability of the electoral process. Voting is one of those functions so critical that technology of all kinds should be kept far away from it. Vote in person, count it manually and keep the ballot papers so that a recount/audit can be undertaken anytime.

[Badbisco]

I have no doubt that some voting irregularities have occurred but I did have some questions on how Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai set up his graphs and curious if anyone could explain why I may be looking at it wrong.

The downward sloping line could make sense to me if we assume a hypothetical scenario where Trump was abandoned by X% of staunch Republicans, who normally would vote straight line R. Then the absolute differential between R% for straight line and split voters would increase for precincts that were more Republican.

A precinct that was 30R/70D by affiliation may have 30%R in straight line votes but only 24%R of split ticket votes with a difference of -6%. A precinct that was 50/50 would have a -10% difference and a 70/30 precinct would have a -14% difference. I think Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai should have plotted the R% straight/split ticket difference as a % of the straight R%. My hypo example would plot as a straight line at -20% across the precincts.

Even if my scenario above makes sense for the downward slope, the initial straight line trend up until a precinct hits 20%-40%R seems fishy, as well as the truly scattered patterns for D precincts.

[Patrick Armstrong]

I have seen the following families of evidence of fraud
1) anecdotes
2) probabilities (Biden getting more votes than Obama only where he needed them, down ballot differences et al)
3) statistical analysis like this, Benford and some others
4) computer nerds looking at the machines (just beginning)
They all point the same way and they all occur in the necessary places.
BUT
1) can you convince objective judges?
2) are there any objective judges?
3) if the judges conclude there was fraud, what to do?

Whatever happens. half the country will be convinced the election was stolen. Then what?