create account

Anomalous voter turnout numbers do not prove there was fraud. by zafrada

View this thread on: hive.blogpeakd.comecency.com
· @zafrada ·
$3.45
Anomalous voter turnout numbers do not prove there was fraud.
![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/zafrada/i8mTUm4R-image.png)




**Reminder: statistical outliers are not prima facie evidence of untoward behavior.**

I've seen several posts alleging fraudulent behavior in this election based on anomalous voter turnout numbers.  These numbers are outside the norm and are "statistically impossible" and therefore must be fraud.  But a couple of things to keep in mind:

1) Demand curves slope downward.  As costs fall, quantity demanded increases.  The broad push and relaxation of mail-in voting rules in this election reduced costs for many voters.  So, ceteris paribus, we would expect a greater number of votes cast.  Couple this fact with the contentiousness of the election and the apocalyptic predictions of defeat on both sides, and it's likely the demand curve shifted out.  Falling costs and increasing demand would produce more quantity demanded.
2) If there is little variation in the data, then even a small change (in absolute terms) from the mean could be multiple standard deviations from the mean.  For example, let's say we have a voting area where, for the past 6 elections, voter turnout has ranged from 66.2%-66.4%.  The standard deviation here is 0.089.  Thus, even an increase in voter turnout to 66.5% would represent a statistically significant increase.  Something like 66.7% would be far outside the "normal." But these fairly small increases wouldn't be much of an increase in voting numbers in absolute terms (depending on the underlying size of the population, an increase of 0.5 percentage points could simply be one extra family voting!).  

Likewise, of course, the absence of statistical anomalies doesn't mean there *is* no untoward behavior.  The lack of a gender gap between male pay and female pay in the marketplace once accounting for various differences in career, education, and the like does not imply no gender discrimination.  

Folks love to point to anomalous behavior and cry foul.  We see it with global warming, COVID, discrimination, and the like.  Unfortunately, we are now seeing it with voting.  But remember: just because something looks mathy, doesn't mean it's reasonable or scientific.  It is far more likely mere truthiness and scientism.  One needs theory.  Facts never, ever, speak for themselves.
👍  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and 4 others
properties (23)
authorzafrada
permlinkanomalous-voter-turnout-numbers-do-not-prove-there-was-fraud
categoryelection
json_metadata{"app":"peakd/2020.11.1","format":"markdown","tags":["election","fraud","allegations","statistics","outliers"],"image":["https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/zafrada/i8mTUm4R-image.png"]}
created2020-11-15 00:42:45
last_update2020-11-15 00:42:45
depth0
children0
last_payout2020-11-22 00:42:45
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value1.726 HBD
curator_payout_value1.719 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length2,314
author_reputation178,797,477,930,316
root_title"Anomalous voter turnout numbers do not prove there was fraud. "
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id100,533,693
net_rshares16,715,408,201,250
author_curate_reward""
vote details (68)