.0063% errors on average in Swing States in 2020

[Kurt]

Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donahue determined this was the error rate in 2020.

Having PBS on in the background.
Trump refused to accept that the AG had nothing to do with elections other than Civil Rights issues.

So, obviously Deep State. Sticking to their job.

[Tarkan]

LOL and how the fuck did he "figure" that out?

[Kurt]

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/11071785 ... aud-claims

A "quick calculation"

But it was under oath.

Does that mean anything?

[ROB]

But it was under oath.

Does that mean anything?

Depends.

Was he running for scotus?

[Tarkan]

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107178582/doj-jan-6-committee-trump-election-fraud-claims

A "quick calculation"

But it was under oath.

Does that mean anything?

Not really. It's a little too precise and narrow to be believable. There's an inherent error rate in the balloting process, independent of malfeasance and incompetence, and it's a lot higher than 0.0063%.

[Kurt]

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107178582/doj-jan-6-committee-trump-election-fraud-claims

A "quick calculation"

But it was under oath.

Does that mean anything?

Not really. It's a little too precise and narrow to be believable. There's an inherent error rate in the balloting process, independent of malfeasance and incompetence, and it's a lot higher than 0.0063%.

How did you come up with "a lot higher than 0.0063%"

These were places with a recount. So they would have had before vs. after and a quick calculation could determine the error rate.

I've made "quick calculations" about uptime for like a 443 day period. Then average uptime. When you got numbers in front of you a quick calculation can be done.

[Tarkan]

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107178582/doj-jan-6-committee-trump-election-fraud-claims

A "quick calculation"

But it was under oath.

Does that mean anything?

Not really. It's a little too precise and narrow to be believable. There's an inherent error rate in the balloting process, independent of malfeasance and incompetence, and it's a lot higher than 0.0063%.

How did you come up with "a lot higher than 0.0063%"

These were places with a recount. So they would have had before vs. after and a quick calculation could determine the error rate.

I've made "quick calculations" about uptime for like a 443 day period. Then average uptime. When you got numbers in front of you a quick calculation can be done.

Anecdotal memory of recount reports.

Here's an older article from a non-political source that discusses:

https://www.insidescience.org/news/even ... ion-errors

Error rates for careful hand recounts are typically 0.5-2%.

That's the process you would use to audit an actual vote.

Known test ballots being fed through a mechanical / optical reader gives you a theoretical ceiling for the accuracy of the reading system, but the whole process itself is managed by people (often retired volunteer poll workers) and people are voting, and the inherent error rate in people tends to be a lot higher than 0.0063%. 0.0063% heavily implies the "optical scanner works" but says nothing about the overall error rate of the process.

Since you play around in the availability space, then you are probably quite familiar with the concept of a bullshit number that sounds precise but is actually measuring nothing all that relevant.

[Kurt]

That is why he said it was the most error free election. He knew that .0063% was an anomaly but that was the data he was given.

Now I know you are gonna be all like "Anomaly! Deep State made the election too perfect! thus proving it was stolen"

But it also is possible that generations of poll workers actually had their shit together enough to make this election less error prone than others.

[Tarkan]

That is why he said it was the most error free election. He knew that .0063% was an anomaly but that was the data he was given.

Now I know you are gonna be all like "Anomaly! Deep State made the election too perfect! thus proving it was stolen"

But it also is possible that generations of poll workers actually had their shit together enough to make this election less error prone than others.

I had no intention of using this as a vehicle to argue for or against the validity of the election, not even really interested in hashing over that argument. I was just saying, that error rate is a silly assertion to make (sort of like people claiming 6 9's availability).

If you like dark sci-fi, then Blindsight and Echopraxia by Peter Watts is a good two-book opening of a planned trilogy. He's a bit delayed on the third installment, but has reportedly said that the third book won't be nearly as optimistic as the first two.

https://rifters.com/

Most of his books are available for free (meaning, he publishes them under some open license after they've been out for a while).

If you like dark non-fiction near term look-aheads, then "The End of the World Is Just the Beginning" by Peter Zeihan is a good book.

Similarly, another good set of books are Secular Cycles and War, Peace, and War by Peter Turchin are good books.